logout

Store Research

Assembly Bill 2222 (Kuehl – 2000)

Chapter 1049, Statutes of 2000 - AB 2222

Some bill research does not include the Governor's file because at the time we researched the bill, the sitting Governor had not released his chaptered bill file. If the Governor's file is not included with this particular research, please contact our office (1-530-666-1917 or quote@legintent.com) and we will be happy to provide this file at no charge if it is available. Please Note: Governor files did not exist prior to 1943.

As enacted Assembly Bill 2222 amended sections 51, 51.5 and 54 of the Civil Code, and amended sections 12926, 12940, 12955.3 and 12931 of and added section 12926.1 to the Government Code.  (See Exhibit #1f)  Assembly member Sheila Kuehl introduced the bill on February 24, 2000, at the request of the Employment Law Center, a project of the Legal Aid Society of San Francisco.  (See Exhibits #1a and #3, page 6)  This measure enacted the “Prudence Kay Poppink Act.”  (See Exhibit #1f) 

Assembly Bill 2222 was assigned to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment and the Senate Committee on Judiciary where policy issues raised by the bill were considered.  (See Exhibits #3, #5, and #11)  The Assembly Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Appropriations considered the fiscal ramifications of the bill.  (See Exhibits #7 and #13)  Four amendments were made to Assembly Bill 2222 during legislative consideration.  (See Exhibits #1b through #1e and #2)  Subsequent to legislative approval, Governor Gray Davis signed the bill on September 30, 2000, and the Secretary of State recorded it on that day as Chapter 1049 of the Statutes of 2000.  (See Exhibits #1f and #2)

The Third Reading analysis of Assembly Bill 2222 prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses provided the following description of this measure as last amended on August 28, 2000:

DIGEST:  This bill enacts the Prudence Kay Poppink Act.  The bill clarifies the definitions of “mental disability”, “physical disability” and “medical condition” for the purposes of California’s civil rights laws, limits an employer’s ability to require medical or psychological examinations, or make certain medical or disability-related inquiries; and requires an employer to engage in a good faith, interactive process to determine reasonable accommodations for a disabled employee or applicant.

(See Exhibit #14b, page 1)