CA AB556: Another Dead Letter Law for Veterans
What They Promised
On October 10, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 556 into law. The pitch was straightforward: add "military and veteran status" to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) so California's 1.8 million veterans would have the same employment discrimination protections as every other protected class.
Assembly Member Rudy Salas sold the bill on grim statistics:
Post-9/11 veteran unemployment at 10.1% (versus 6.8% national average)
Young veteran unemployment at 24%
In October 2012, youth veteran unemployment in California hit 43%
The legislative analysis documented what any veteran could have told them: employers believed military members were "too non-traditional, too old and will not take orders from younger civilians," and that they'd "fallen behind their civilian counterparts."
The bill passed 70-0 in the Assembly. Unanimous in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Everyone clapped. Nobody enforces it.
What the Law Actually Says
AB 556 amended Government Code sections 12920, 12921, 12926, and 12940 to define "military and veteran status" as members or veterans of:
United States Armed Forces
United States Armed Forces Reserve
United States National Guard
California National Guard
It made discrimination against this class illegal by:
Employers in hiring, firing, pay, and working conditions
Labor unions in membership and representation
Employment agencies in placement
Training programs in access and apprenticeships
It created private rights of action. Veterans could sue. They could recover damages and attorney's fees. On paper, it looked like protection.
The law included one exemption: employers could still ask about military/veteran status to award veteran's preference points. That made sense—you can't give veterans an advantage if you can't ask about service.
What Actually Happened: Nothing
Eleven years later, in 2024, I filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (formerly DFEH) against a labor union that systematically stifled my career based on anti-military bias. When I filled out their online complaint form, there was no option to select military or veteran status discrimination.
Read that again. The enforcement agency for a law passed in 2013 didn't even build the category into their intake system by 2024.
I can't find any public data on AB 556 enforcement. No annual reports breaking down military/veteran discrimination cases. No press releases about successful prosecutions. No CRD statistics on how many complaints they've received, investigated, or resolved under this provision.
The CRD bungled my case. The labor union walked away clean. And based on the absence of any enforcement data in the public record, I doubt I'm the only one.
The Federal Parallel: 18 USC § 1389
This isn't unique to California. There's a federal precedent for veteran protection laws that exist only on paper.
In 2009, Congress passed 18 U.S.C. § 1389 as part of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Senator Jeff Sessions introduced what he called the "Soldiers Amendment" to put service members and veterans "on equal footing with other protected classes" in hate crimes law.
It passed unanimously. Senator Carl Levin said "we should do everything we can when it comes to our criminal laws to protect [our men and women in uniform] and their families."
The DOJ's own website doesn't even acknowledge the law exists. Jeff Sessions spent 636 days as Attorney General and never mentioned it. The GI Justice analysis shows that unlike other hate crimes provisions, § 1389 has no reporting requirements, no data collection, and the statutory language is so poorly drafted it may expire protections after five years from discharge.
Service members and veterans can't report hate crimes under § 1389 because the enforcement agency acts like the law doesn't exist.
The Pattern
Both laws—federal and state—follow the same script:
Recognition of the problem: Veterans face discrimination, bias, violence
Bipartisan support: Everyone agrees this is wrong and veterans deserve protection
Legislative victory: Bills pass unanimously or with overwhelming support
Enforcement vacuum: The agencies responsible for enforcement ignore the law completely
No accountability: No data collection, no reporting, no consequences for non-enforcement
AB 556 gave California veterans theoretical protection. On paper, we're a protected class. In practice, the agency charged with enforcement couldn't even be bothered to add us as an option on their complaint form.
What This Means for Veterans
If you're a California veteran facing employment discrimination based on your service:
Legally, you have:
Three years to file with CA CRD (Government Code requirements)
The right to request an immediate Right to Sue letter to file in court
Private cause of action under FEHA
Potential damages and attorney's fees
Practically, you're facing:
An enforcement agency that may not recognize the category
No public data on successful enforcement
The burden of funding your own litigation
Employers and unions who know the law isn't enforced
This doesn't mean you shouldn't fight. It means you should be realistic about what you're up against. The law exists. The enforcement doesn't.
Why This Matters
Dead letter laws do worse than nothing. They create the illusion of protection while providing none. Veterans believe they have recourse. Employers and unions know better. The result is asymmetric information that favors those doing the discriminating.
When California's legislature passed AB 556, they weren't lying. They genuinely wanted to protect veterans from employment discrimination. But somewhere between legislative intent and administrative implementation, the protection evaporated.
Same story as the federal hate crimes law. Same pattern of bipartisan support, unanimous votes, and absolute enforcement failure. Veterans get symbolic protection. Perpetrators get impunity. Nothing changes.
