After a report of a hate crime, California law requires school officials (and employers) to notify police, to try and find the offender and to undertake measures to prevent the hate crime from occurring again.

If the school or employer does not do what’s reasonable, then California law also the victim to seek damages in court.

However, many employers and private schools today require employees and students (their parents) to “sign away” the right to sue in favor of “arbitration.”

Exactly one year ago I reported here about the plight of a boy who received graphic death threats from fellow students due to his perceived sexual orientation. He reported the hate crimes to his private school, which did little to help. Police told his family to move to a different part of California.

Then, the school publicly disclosed in the school paper the student’s new community and school.

When the boy’s parents sued the school, a court refused to allow them to litigate the hate crime claim in court. Rather, the court found that, even though the parents had no choice but to sign away their rights, the contract was valid.

In the arbitration, the parents lost and were ordered to pay a $500,000 in arbitration fees. An appellate court relieved the parents of those costs, but the court also affirmed the legality of the arbitration agreement.

Local Assemblyman Lori Saldana was so moved after reading the story that she contacted me so we could put together a bill that would prohibit a waiver of any of the legal rights provided by California hate crimes law as a condition of entering into a contract.

Assemblywoman Saldana’s heroic efforts got the bill through the Assembly and the Senate. Equality California sponsored the bill.

The bill is so reasonable that even the usual foes of bills that are pro-gay decided to tacitly support this measure. The bill applies to those persons subject to hate crimes because of their religious orientation.

AB 1680 awaits the Governor’s approval, but business groups oppose the measure because they wrongfully fear that all employment-related claims will no longer be subject to arbitration. But “hate crimes” occurring in the workplace are not common. When they occur, employers should react responsibly. So there’s no reason to fear losing arbitration as method for resolving most disputes.

What will be gained is valuable because the victims of such crimes fare better before juries who empathize with the victims.

For example, several years ago two high students sued their principal for an inadequate response to hate crimes they suffered at school. A San Diego jury found in favor of the students and awarded damages. The students would not have fared as well before a retired judge acting as arbiter.

The sad fact is that arbitration used to be an alternative to “litigation.” But now litigation may be the faster and cheaper alternative to arbitration. Years ago it took five years for a case to get to trial. Today, cases can get to trial well within a year, especially if the parties opt for a one-day trial. Court costs are nominal and the litigants don’t pay an hourly rate to a judge. Meanwhile, retired judges who resolve private disputes charge thousands.

AB 1680 is a smart measure. Urge the Governor to sign the bill.