California bans employees from traveling to states with anti-LGBT laws

[DonViejo]

Source: Associated Press

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will limit publicly funded travel to states that have laws restricting the rights of gay and transgender people under legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown. The Democratic governor said Tuesday he’s approving AB1887.

The bill by Democratic Assemblyman Evan Low of Campbell bars non-essential travel to states with laws that sanction or require discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

It also blocks California state agencies from requiring their employees to travel to those states. The bill applies to state agencies and the University of California and California State University systems.

The attorney general will come up with a list of states to which travel is restricted.

###

Read more: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/09/california-bans-employees-traveling-states-anti-lgbt-laws/?utm_source=LGBTQ+Nation+Subscribers&utm_campaign=be9c3ed1eb-20160928_LGBTQ_Nation_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c4eab596bd-be9c3ed1eb-429583333

[Buzz Clik]

1. Ok. That's insane.

[still_one]

2. That is only if you are doing it as a state employee, on state financed travel

what you do privately is your business

[GummyBearz]

4. So...

The next time a peer reviewed conference is held in such a state, the professors and students of UCs and CSUs have to pay to go on their own dime? Great...

[still_one]

8. Pick another venue for a state that doesn't have discriminatory practices. North Carolina

has already lost hundreds of millions of dollars because of their discriminatory laws

The NCAA and Atlantic Coast Conference have moved their championship events out of the state

The NBA has moved its 2017 All-Star Game from Charlotte to New Orleans

along with a lot more sporting events in the queue

PayPal, Deutsche Bank, and other companies canceled expansions in the state, boycotts from other companies have occurred. Concerts and other forms of entertainment have been cancelled, and add that to the mounting legal fees the state will now have to spend to defend the law.

North Carolina is also facing a very real risk to lose nearly 5 Billion a year in federal funding for public schools and universities, depending on the result of the Justice Department's ongoing lawsuit against the state.

My point is that boycotts against states that engage in discriminatory practices has already been going on at all levels

[Brother Buzz]

10. The bill limits publicly funded travel on non-essential travel

There's wiggle room built into the bill, and I would assume a peer reviewed conference is essential.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Here's the bill; I'd say conferences are 'non-essential' as far as it's concerned

The bill doesn't use the word 'essential'; it lists what reasons for travel are acceptable, and it's complying with the law, meetings or training required by a grant, job-required training needed for a license, the protection of health, that kind of thing.

(c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply to travel that is required for any of the following purposes:
(1) Enforcement of California law, including auditing and revenue collection.
(2) Litigation.
(3) To meet contractual obligations incurred before January 1, 2017.
(4) To comply with requests by the federal government to appear before committees.
(5) To participate in meetings or training required by a grant or required to maintain grant funding.
(6) To complete job-required training necessary to maintain licensure or similar standards required for holding a position, in the event that comparable training cannot be obtained in California or a different state not affected by subdivision (b).
(7) For the protection of public health, welfare, or safety, as determined by the affected agency, department, board, authority, or commission, or by the affected legislative office, as described in subdivision (b).

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1887

[FreeState]

16. 7 is fairly broad and could include conferences, depending on topic IMO n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Only certain types of conference, and I think it would be against the spirit of the law

unless it's a true emergency like Zika, say. You might be able to put a general medical conference under that heading, but only if you're looking for ways round the law.

[FreeState]

18. It will be interesting to see what happens. Do you know if

It will be interesting to see what happens.

I wish it was a little broader in its definition; it should include states that do not have protections in place for all minorities.

(1) Require any of its employees, officers, or members to travel to a state that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a law that voids or repeals, or has the effect of voiding or repealing, existing state or local protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression or has enacted a law that authorizes or requires discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, including any law that creates an exemption to antidiscrimination laws in order to permit discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

(2) Approve a request for state-funded or state-sponsored travel to a state that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a law that voids or repeals, or has the effect of voiding or repealing, existing state or local protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, or has enacted a law that authorizes or requires discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, including any law that creates an exemption to antidiscrimination laws in order to permit discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

[jberryhill]

3. It may seem that way, however....

The problem arises if an LGBT employee is required, as a condition of their employment, to go somewhere in which the employee may be discriminated against.

Do you (a) send that employee anyway, or (b) send another employee. Each of those choices raises a risk.

Consider these facts, which bring the general problem of employee travel into clearer focus:

1. You run a bank and you have an office in Cayman. You have an employee which you want to send to work at the Cayman office. That employee is in a same sex marriage with a dependent spouse.

2. Cayman will not recognize that employee's dependent spouse for the purpose of granting that spouse a resident visa. Your employee will not go there because that employee's spouse cannot go.

3. You have another equally-qualified employee who is not in a same sex marriage.

4. Working at the Cayman office for a year is a significant experience relevant to promotion in your bank.

What do you do?

(facts based on an actual case)

[Buzz Clik]

6. The state of California was sending employees to Cayman for a year?

[jberryhill]

9. I'm going to gather you did not understand the point of my post

I gather there are those who do not recognize that there is a general class of problem here. The problem, generally stated, is whether an employer has a potential liability issue if they require travel of an employee to a location where that employee may encounter discrimination that some other employee would not encounter.

I gave you an example that is in that general class of problem, but you seem not to have understood the point of the example.

No, it is not the "state of California". The example of the general class of problem assumed you were running a bank.

So I do not understand how my post leads to the question you asked, since I believe it was readily apparent that in discussion of the general problem of "what happens when you have to send one employee or another employee to a jurisdiction which does not accord equal rights to those employees" and what sort of decision you make in that situation.

The foolproof answer to that question, on the part of the employer, is don't send anyone.

I thought my example, which is a more pointed situation, would make the general class of problem more apparent to you. Obviously, I failed.

[hibbing]

21. Thanks for posting this

You pointed out some ramifications I did not think about when I read the OP. I think the law is good and will hopefully cause some changes in North Carolina. But there are all kinds of different scenarios that will be in the mix once the law has been in place.

Peace

[olddad56]

5. This pleases me.

[Buzz Clik]

7. I guess it boils down to what is "non-essential travel."

[Quackers]

11. That caught my eye too.

If it's non-essential, why were people going there in the first place?

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. See #13; attending a conference seems 'non-essential' (nt)

[Quackers]

19. After reading the list of what is still covered,

I wonder if this law really serves a purpose other than just to say "see what we did?" If they ban all travel except for what's listed than it's really not limiting anything.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. I think travel to most conferences would be banned

and since this covers the state universities, that's notable. It would also ban travel to talk to anyone to set up new contracts, for instance, or to go to exhibitions. And any university sport travel.

[snooper2]

22. Why should taxpayers be paying for non-essential travel anyway?

Shouldn't any travel done by a government employee be "essential"

[PasadenaTrudy]

12. Love my state! n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Does anyone know if they already have a similar law about anti-LGBT countries?

You'd think they would have done that first; and it would give us an idea of how this will work in practice.