News and Events => Political and Legal News => Topic started by: Shana A on May 01, 2010, 08:36:32 AM Return to Full Version
Title: California Assembly passes new hate crimes bill
Post by: Shana A on May 01, 2010, 08:36:32 AM
Post by: Shana A on May 01, 2010, 08:36:32 AM
California Assembly passes new hate crimes bill
SDGLN Staff | Fri, 04/30/2010 - 10:45am
http://sdgln.com/causes/2010/04/29/california-assembly-passes-new-hate-crimes-bill (http://sdgln.com/causes/2010/04/29/california-assembly-passes-new-hate-crimes-bill)
SACRAMENTO -- The California State Assembly passed the Hate Crimes Protection Act (AB 1689) in a 44-25 vote on Thursday.
Sponsored by Equality California and introduced by Assemblymember Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego, the bill would exempt hate crimes from mandatory arbitration clauses, often included in employment contracts and would prohibit contracts from requiring an individual to waive his or her legal rights, guaranteed under the Ralph Civil Rights Act, which provides protections for hate crime victims.
"Victims of hate crimes should never be forced into arbitration simply because they signed an employment or residential contract with fine print that waives their right to seek justice in our courts," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California.
Title: Re: California Assembly passes new hate crimes bill
Post by: LordKAT on May 01, 2010, 11:02:52 AM
Post by: LordKAT on May 01, 2010, 11:02:52 AM
Why agree to sign away any of your basic rights? If no one did then there would be no cause to include them in any contract. I also don't think a contract should be able to negate any law.
This strikes me as a way to discriminate against LGBT people. People not in that group would have no problem signing the thing but LGBT people would hesitate. That gives an employer a reason to not hire by circumventing the law. If they don't hesitate, they lose a right that was specifically granted. It makes no sense to me but I'm mellow.
This strikes me as a way to discriminate against LGBT people. People not in that group would have no problem signing the thing but LGBT people would hesitate. That gives an employer a reason to not hire by circumventing the law. If they don't hesitate, they lose a right that was specifically granted. It makes no sense to me but I'm mellow.
Title: Re: California Assembly passes new hate crimes bill
Post by: Vicky on May 05, 2010, 08:14:45 PM
Post by: Vicky on May 05, 2010, 08:14:45 PM
Like a lot of things, the binding arbitration clauses in some contracts here in Califonria was a good idea in its inception, and was meant to solve some serious problems of backlog in our court system, by getting people to sit down and negotiate settlements of actual wrongs. They do not absolutely preclude access to the court system, its just that it takes longer to get there, and has to be based on one party showing that the arbitrator was not competent or was biased. Many of the arbitrators are in fact retired state court judges. Labor unions have actually bargained to have the clauses in some of their contracts with employers since arbitration cases are NOT public record as a court suit is. HMMMMMM!!
The advantage to these was that most people got adequate compensation for monetary losses quickly, and the level of proof of the damages was lower and simpler than it is in the courts, but there is no room for damages such as emotional harm or punitive damages where a cost cannot be easily determined in the system. The Bill here does not do away with ALL mandatory arbitration contracts, but I am happy to see it enacted for what it does. Hatred can never arbitrate in good faith. You do not sign away all of the rights with this type of contract, but you exchange specific rights which may take years to end up in your pockets for quick cash even if it is less than you may or may not get from a jury.
The advantage to these was that most people got adequate compensation for monetary losses quickly, and the level of proof of the damages was lower and simpler than it is in the courts, but there is no room for damages such as emotional harm or punitive damages where a cost cannot be easily determined in the system. The Bill here does not do away with ALL mandatory arbitration contracts, but I am happy to see it enacted for what it does. Hatred can never arbitrate in good faith. You do not sign away all of the rights with this type of contract, but you exchange specific rights which may take years to end up in your pockets for quick cash even if it is less than you may or may not get from a jury.