Committee to Review Pasadena’s First Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Law, But Lacks Funding for Enforcement

Pasadena lacks a comprehensive citywide anti-discrimination ordinance—a gap the Legislative Policy Committee will review on October 7, 2025, when it considers a proposed policy that would protect residents from bias in housing, employment, education and business transactions beyond the city’s existing AIDS anti-discrimination law.

The Legislative Policy Committee received a draft anti-discrimination policy at its June 3 meeting that would prohibit discrimination based on “race; color; ethnicity; creed; age; national origin; religion; citizenship or immigration status; gender; gender identity or expression; sexual orientation; visible or non-visible disability; medical condition; genetic information; marital status; partnership status; pregnancy and/or reproductive health choice(s); employment status; housing status; source of income; military status; veteran status; or primary language,” according to the draft policy.

For most discrimination cases, residents currently must primarily rely on state and federal law enforcement agencies for bias complaints.

“The City does not have an existing Commission trained and well versed to conduct hearings and render decisions,” the staff report acknowledges. More critically, it states: “Currently there remains no funding available to support additional City staff for enforcement of an anti-discrimination policy.”

The proposal offers three enforcement options: civil penalties up to $1,000, administrative action, or criminal prosecution through existing Pasadena Police Department protocols.

The City Attorney’s Office has prepared sample ordinance language stating that violations “shall be enforceable through a civil action, an administrative action, and/or a criminal prosecution (as either a misdemeanor or infraction).” The language adds: “These remedies are not exclusive and may be used cumulatively with any other remedies or otherwise available at law.”

Input from the city’s Commission on the Status of Women, Accessibility and Disability Commission, and Human Relations Commission shaped the draft policy statement presented at the June 3 Legislative Policy Committee meeting.

State law already prohibits discrimination in these areas through the Unruh Act for business establishments and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for workplace and housing bias. The California Labor Code also prohibits pay discrimination based on sex, race, or ethnicity, with violators liable for the amount of wages plus interest and liquidated damages. California Education Code § 200 guarantees equal rights and opportunities in public schools.

Federal civil rights laws provide additional protections. But enforcement requires filing complaints with state or federal agencies—processes that can be lengthy and expensive. Under the Unruh Act, violations can result in “actual damages, treble damages, but not less than $4,000 per instance.” Discriminatory conduct covered includes business-to-business boycotts, charging different prices for different genders, false allegations to law enforcement requiring intervention, and sexual harassment in business or professional relationships.

FEHA prohibits discriminatory housing conduct including harassment; discriminatory inquiries about protected characteristics; eviction based on protected characteristics; restrictive covenants; zoning denials; and aiding, abetting, inciting, or compelling discriminatory conduct.

The Legislative Policy Committee expressed interest in adding “prefatory statements of legislative intent” to any ordinance and also requested information identifying protections in state laws to assess other categories which may be missing in the City’s draft policy.

The proposal has been deemed exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as it would have no significant environmental impact.

However, without dedicated funding or staff for enforcement, the policy risks limited implementation. The city could contract with outside professionals for investigation and enforcement, but no budget allocation has been identified. Penalties would be assessed based on criteria including: extent of harm caused by the violation; number of violations; nature and persistence of the violation; and length of time over which the violation occurred, including past violations.

Staff requests the Legislative Policy Committee “advise on changes, if any, it may wish to make on the enforcement options and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance if the City Council is ready to proceed.”

The committee’s recommendations—should it approve moving forward—would then go to the City Council for a vote.