BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






                             SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                             Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
                              2013-2014 Regular Session


          SB 666 (Steinberg)
          As Amended April 11, 2013
          Hearing Date: April 30, 2013
          Fiscal: Yes
          Urgency: No
          TW


                                        SUBJECT
                                           
                              Employment:  retaliation

                                      DESCRIPTION  

          This bill would suspend or revoke a business license if the  
          licensee threatens to retaliate or retaliates against an  
          employee based on his or her citizenship or immigration status.   
          This bill would also provide for the suspension, disbarment, or  
          other discipline of an attorney who threatens to report the  
          immigration status of a witness or party to a civil or  
          administrative action because the witness or party exercises or  
          has exercised a right related to his or her employment.  

          This bill would also authorize a civil penalty up to $10,000 per  
          employee against a corporate or limited liability company  
          employer who discriminates, retaliates, or takes adverse action  
          against an employee who makes a written or oral complaint for  
          unpaid wages.  This bill would clarify that an employee is not  
          required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a  
          civil action under the Labor Code, unless otherwise expressly  
          statutorily required to exhaust administrative remedies.

          This bill would also extend whistleblower protections to  
          employees who provide information to or testify before any  
          public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry  
          regarding employer violations of federal or state laws.

                                      BACKGROUND  

          Existing law provides protections, rights, and remedies  
          available under state law to all individuals, regardless of  
                                                                (more)



          SB 666 (Steinberg)
          Page 2 of ?



          immigration status, who have applied for employment, or who are  
          or who have been employed, in this state.  Further, California's  
          labor laws provide anti-retaliation protection for employees,  
          who make claims against their employers for violations of labor  
          laws.

          A recent study noted that there are approximately 2.6 million  
          undocumented individuals in California.  (Cho and Smith,  
          Workers' Rights on ICE:  How Immigration Reform Can Stop  
          Retaliation and Advance Labor Rights, National Employment Law  
          Project (Feb. 2013)  
           [as of Apr. 22, 2013],  
          p. 2.)  The study also noted that "[m]ost undocumented  
          immigrants work in traditionally low-wage occupations such as  
          agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and service  
          industries, where workers face the greatest risk for  
          exploitation.  Undocumented workers are far more likely to  
          experience violations of wage and hour laws."  (Id.)  The study  
          states that many undocumented workers do not file claims against  
          their employers out of fear of "'getting in trouble' or being  
          fired."  (Id.) The study also found that "[w]hile threats of job  
          loss have an especially serious consequence in this job market,  
          an employer's threat to alert immigration or local law  
          enforcement of an undocumented immigrant worker's status carries  
          added force.  Such action is at least as frequent as other forms  
          of retaliation."  (Id. at pp. 2-3.)

          In order to further address employer retaliation against  
          employees who assert their rights under the Labor Code and  
          reaffirm the Legislative protections available to all employees,  
          regardless of citizenship status, this bill would prohibit  
          retaliation against an employee based on the citizenship or  
          immigration status of the employee or his or her family members.  
           This bill would also clarify that an employer is prohibited  
          from discriminating, retaliating, or taking adverse action  
          against an employee who makes a written or oral complaint that  
          the employee is owed unpaid wages, and provides up to a $10,000  
          penalty for violations thereof.  

          This bill would also subject a business licensee to disciplinary  
          action for threatening to retaliate or retaliating against an  
          employee based on the employee's citizenship or immigration  
          status.  This bill would also provide for disciplinary action  
          against an attorney who threatens to report the immigration  
          status of a witness or party to a civil or administrative  
                                                                      



          SB 666 (Steinberg)
          Page 3 of ?



          proceeding, as specified.  

          This bill would also supplement the California Whistleblower  
          Protection Statute by protecting an employee who provides  
          information to, or testifies before, any public body conducting  
          an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into improper employer  
          conduct, as specified.

          This bill was heard by the Senate Committee on Labor and  
          Industrial Relations on April 24, 2013, and passed out on a vote  
          of 4-0.

                                CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
          1.  Existing law  subjects a business licensee to suspension or  
            revocation for various unlawful conduct, including knowingly  
            making a false statement of or knowingly omitting to state, a  
            material fact in an application for a license, conviction of a  
            crime, commission of any act involving dishonesty, fraud or  
            other deceit with the intent to substantially benefit himself,  
            herself, or another, or substantially injure another, or  
            commission of any act which would be grounds for suspension or  
            revocation of a license.  (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 475.)

             Existing law  , the State Bar Act, provides statutory licensing  
            requirements for attorneys practicing law in the state.  (Bus.  
            & Prof. Code Sec. 6000 et seq.)  The State Bar also provides  
            disciplinary measures, including suspension and disbarment, of  
            attorneys for acts of dishonesty, moral turpitude, and  
            corruption.  (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6100 et seq.)   
             
            This bill  would subject a business licensee to suspension or  
            revocation for threatening to retaliate or retaliating,  
            through the use of the employee's citizenship or immigration  
            status, against a current, former, or prospective employee of  
            the licensee who attempts to exercise an employment right  
            protected by law.

             This bil  l would authorize the suspension, disbarment, or other  
            discipline against a licensed attorney who reports the  
            immigration status, or threatens to report the immigration  
            status, of a witness or party to a civil or administrative  
            action, or his or her family member, to a federal, state, or  
            local agency because the witness or party exercises, or has  
            exercised, a right related to his or her employment.  For  
            purposes of this provision, this bill would define "family  
                                                                      



          SB 666 (Steinberg)
          Page 4 of ?



            member" to mean a spouse, parent, sibling, child, uncle, aunt,  
            niece, nephew, cousin, grandparent, or grandchild related by  
            blood, adoption, marriage, or domestic partnership.

          2.    Existing law  provides that all protections, rights, and  
            remedies available under state law, except any reinstatement  
            remedy prohibited by federal law, are available to all  
            individuals regardless of immigration status who have applied  
            for employment, or who are or who have been employed, in this  
            state.  For purposes of enforcing state labor and employment  
            laws, existing law provides that a person's immigration status  
            is irrelevant to the issue of liability, and in proceedings or  
            discovery undertaken to enforce those state laws, no inquiry  
            shall be permitted into a person's immigration status except  
            where the person seeking to make this inquiry has shown by  
            clear and convincing evidence that the inquiry is necessary in  
            order to comply with federal immigration law.  (Lab. Code Sec.  
            1171.5, Civ. Code Sec. 3339, Gov. Code Sec. 7285, Health &  
            Saf. Code Sec. 24000.)

             Existing law  prohibits discrimination against an employee or  
            job applicant for exercising his or her rights, including  
            initiating an action or testifying in any proceeding thereto,  
            delineated under the Labor Code.  (Lab. Code Sec. 98.6.)

             This bill  would clarify that the employee or job applicant is  
            also protected under the above provision from retaliation or  
            adverse actions by the employer.  This bill would also provide  
            these protections to the employee or job applicant for making  
            a written or oral complaint that he or she is owed unpaid  
            wages.

             This bill  would authorize, in addition to any other remedies  
            available, a civil penalty, not to exceed $10,000 per employee  
            for each violation, to be imposed against a corporate or  
            limited liability company employer.

          3.    Existing law  prohibits employers from withholding an  
            employee's wages and prohibits discrimination, retaliation,  
            and adverse actions by an employer against an employee or job  
            applicant who exercises his or her rights under the law.   
            (Lab. Code Sec. 200 et seq.)  Various statutes under the Labor  
            Code require the employee or applicant to first file a claim  
            against the employer with the Labor Commissioner, and other  
            statutes authorize the claimant to either file a complaint  
            with the Labor Commissioner or file a civil action.
                                                                      



          SB 666 (Steinberg)
          Page 5 of ?




             This bill  would clarify that an employee or job applicant is  
            not required to exhaust administrative remedies or procedures  
            in order to bring a civil action under any provision of the  
            Labor Code, unless the provision under which the action is  
            brought expressly requires exhaustion of an administrative  
            remedy.

             This bill would also provide that reporting or threatening to  
            report an employee's, former employee's, or prospective  
            employee's citizenship or immigration status, or the  
            citizenship or immigration status of his or her family member,  
            to a federal, state, or local agency because the employee,  
            former employee, or prospective employee exercises a right  
            under the provisions of Labor Code, the Government Code, or  
            the Civil Code constitutes an adverse action for purposes of  
            establishing a violation of an employee's, former employee's,  
            or prospective employee's rights.  For purposes of this  
            provision, this bill would define "family member" to mean a  
            spouse, parent, sibling, child, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew,  
            cousin, grandparent, or grandchild related by blood, adoption,  
            marriage, or domestic partnership.

          4.  Existing law  , commonly known as the Whistleblower Protection  
            Statute (WPS), prohibits an employer from preventing an  
            employee from disclosing information, or retaliating against  
            an employee who discloses information, to a government or law  
            enforcement agency where the employee has reasonable cause to  
            believe that the information discloses a violation of state or  
            federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state  
            or federal rule or regulation.  (Lab. Code Sec. 1102.5.)  

             This bill  would also prohibit any person acting on behalf of  
            the employer from preventing or retaliating against an  
            employee who uses the WPS.

             This bill  would also provide protection to a person using the  
            WPS for providing information to, or testifying before, any  
            public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry.

          5.  This bill  would specify that its provisions are severable, and  
            if any of its provision are held invalid, that invalidity  
            shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be  
            given effect without the invalid provision or application.
                                        COMMENT
           
                                                                      



          SB 666 (Steinberg)
          Page 6 of ?



          1.  Stated need for the bill  
          
          The author writes:
          
            An employer or attorney's threat to alert immigration or law  
            enforcement of an undocumented immigrant or their family is an  
            enormous force against justice.  It silences the worker and  
            the entire workplace.  And, it gives a law-breaking business  
            strong incentive to run a shop that falls far short of  
            respecting California's employment laws.  Law-abiding  
            businesses are forced to compete with these law-breakers whose  
            costs are lowered by engaging in illegal activities like wage  
            theft and shortcuts in safety.

            Our current state statutory scheme does little to deter a  
            law-breaking boss or business from using the immigration  
            status of the worker, co-worker, or family member to create an  
            atmosphere of fear to prevent workers from demanding their  
            rights in the workplace.  Our state statutes do not deter an  
            unscrupulous employer from retaliating against a worker by  
            calling immigration authorities when that worker demands that  
            the employer comply with California's labor laws.  This bill  
            is needed to empower workers to exercise their rights under  
            California law without fear that employers will retaliate by  
            reporting their immigration status or that of their family  
            members to government officials.  Senate Bill 666 will deter  
            unscrupulous employers from violating the rights of immigrant  
            workers laboring in California and therefore lift the veil of  
            silence in the workplace.
              
          2.    Discrimination and retaliation based on citizenship status  

          Existing law prohibits employers from withholding an employee's  
          wages and prohibits discrimination, retaliation, and adverse  
          actions by an employer against an employee or job applicant who  
          exercises his or her rights under the law.  (Lab. Code Sec. 200  
          et seq.)  This bill would provide that an adverse action taken  
          by an employer would include reporting or threatening to report  
          an employee's, former employee's, or prospective employee's  
          citizenship or immigration status, or the citizenship or  
          immigration status of his or her family member, to a federal,  
          state, or local agency because the employee, former employee, or  
          prospective employee exercises a right under the provisions of  
          the Labor Code, the Government Code, or the Civil Code.  

          The National Employment Law Project (NELP), in support, asserts  
                                                                      



          SB 666 (Steinberg)
          Page 7 of ?



          that "[a]s our recent report, Worker Rights on ICE, has  
          documented, immigrant workers are often deterred from exercising  
          their core labor rights because employers threaten to report  
          them on false grounds to local law enforcement agencies, federal  
          immigration enforcement agencies, threaten to re-verify  
          immigration work authorization documents, or enroll in voluntary  
          electronic verifications systems such as E-Verify.  These  
          vulnerable workers - including victims of forced labor, sexual  
          assault, and extortion - consequently fear coming forward to  
          report abuse due to their fear of being reported."
          Further, NELP provided the following examples of employer  
          misconduct identified in its report:

                 An employer in Garden Grove, California falsely accuses  
               a day laborer of robbery in order to avoid paying him for  
               work performed.  Local police officers arrest the worker.   
               Although the police find no merit to the charges, he is  
               turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
                 After workers at a Latino grocery store chain in the San  
               Francisco Bay Area attempt to organize a union, the  
               employer announces that it needs to re-verify workers'  
               authorization and that it will enroll in the voluntary  
               E-Verify program, leading to widespread fear.
                 After the California Labor Commissioner found that a San  
               Jose, California employer owed an immigrant worker $50,000  
               for unpaid wages, the employer harasses the worker in his  
               home and threatens to report him to immigration.

          NELP argues that "[s]ilencing or intimidating a large percentage  
          of workers in any industry means that workers are hobbled in  
          their efforts to protect and improve their jobs.  As long as  
          unscrupulous employers can exploit some low-wage workers with  
          impunity, all low-wage workers suffer compromised employment  
          protections and economic security.  Law-abiding employers are  
          forced to compete with illegal practices, perpetuating low-wages  
          in a whole host of industries."  

          Additionally, Worksafe, in support, asserts that "[c]urrent law  
          lacks strong and specific language with regard to retaliation  
          based upon immigration status.  This creates an ambiguity that  
          allows employers to exercise a retaliation tactic that  
          effectively chills the voices of workers attempting to voice  
          their concerns about health and safety, as well as other issues  
          on the job."  

          The federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) prohibits  
                                                                      



          SB 666 (Steinberg)
          Page 8 of ?



          intimidation, threats, coercion, or retaliation (these acts are  
          considered discrimination under IRCA) against any individual for  
          the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege provided  
          under IRCA or because the individual intends to file or has  
          filed a charge or complaint, testified, or participated in an  
          investigation, proceeding or hearing, and immigration-related  
          employment practices such as discriminating on the basis of  
          citizenship or national origin.  (8 U.S.C.S. 1324b(g)(2)(B).)   
          While IRCA only provides this protection for citizens and  
          permanent resident immigrants, this bill provides similar  
          anti-discrimination and retaliation protections based on  
          California's existing protections for workers who make claims  
          under the Labor Code, which are available to all California  
          employees, regardless of citizenship or immigration status.   
          This bill, by further defining that an employer's adverse action  
          against an employee includes the reporting or threatening to  
          report an employee's or family member's citizenship or  
          immigration status, will strengthen existing anti-retaliation  
          protections.  

          3.  Civil penalties and right of civil action  

          This bill would authorize, in addition to any other remedies  
          available, a civil penalty, not to exceed $10,000 per employee  
          for each violation, to be imposed against a corporate or limited  
          liability company employer who unlawfully discriminates,  
          retaliates, or takes adverse action against an employee making a  
          claim under the Labor Code, as specified.  This bill would also  
          clarify that an employee or job applicant is not required to  
          exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in order to bring  
          a civil action under any provision of the Labor Code, unless the  
          provision under which the action is brought expressly requires  
          exhaustion of an administrative remedy.  

          Worksafe asserts that "[c]urrent law lacks sufficient teeth to  
          penalize employers for retaliatory activity based on immigration  
          status.  Without really significant penalties, or a strong  
          deterrence to break the law, all workers, irrespective of  
          immigration status, suffer when workplace health and safety  
          rights are violated."  Accordingly, the author argues that a  
          statutory civil penalty is necessary to offset the large amounts  
          of money that many undocumented immigrant workers lose as a  
          result of the predatory tactics utilized by unscrupulous  
          employers, and to serve as a deterrent to those defrauding these  
          workers.  

                                                                      



          SB 666 (Steinberg)
          Page 9 of ?



          In addition, proponents of this bill argue that such penalties  
          and a private right of action for harmed workers are warranted  
          in order to effectively deter employers from deliberately  
          misclassifying employees as independent contractors.  The  
          proponents argue that, because governmental entities do not have  
          the resources or time to go after all employers who abuse and  
          threaten undocumented workers, and employers know this,  
          significant penalties and a private right of action are the most  
          effective deterrents to the wrongful conduct.  

          It is important to note that, as discussed above, IRCA provides  
          anti-discrimination/ retaliation protections to workers based on  
          citizenship and immigration status.  While IRCA protects  
          immigrant workers from being discriminated against in the hiring  
          or firing process, based upon whether the worker is a United  
          States citizen, this bill on the other hand, provides protection  
          for workers who are already working for the employer, who uses  
          retaliation tactics to deter workers from filing lawful claims  
          (i.e., for wages, overtime, contractual benefits, or protection  
          to organize) under California laws.  Further, this bill  
          specifies that its provisions are severable, and if any of its  
          provision are held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect  
          other provisions or applications that can be given effect  
          without the invalid provision or application.  Although IRCA and  
          this bill each contemplate different retaliation/discrimination  
          claims, to the extent a court finds that this bill could impose  
          penalties against an employer based on a discrimination claim  
          otherwise protected under IRCA, the state penalty could be  
          preempted by IRCA, which provides its own penalties.  

          4.  Attorney discipline  

          Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides statutory licensing  
          requirements for attorneys practicing law in the state.  (Bus. &  
          Prof. Code Sec. 6000 et seq.)  The State Bar also provides  
          disciplinary measures, including suspension and disbarment, of  
          attorneys who demonstrate acts of dishonesty, moral turpitude,  
          and corruption.  (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6100 et seq.)   This  
          bill would authorize the suspension, disbarment, or other  
          discipline against a licensed attorney who reports immigration  
          status or threatens to report immigration status of a witness or  
          party to a civil or administrative action or his or her family  
          member to a federal, state, or local agency because the witness  
          or party exercises or has exercised a right related to his or  
          her employment.

                                                                      



          SB 666 (Steinberg)
          Page 10 of ?



          The author asserts that "[u]nscrupulous lawyers representing  
          these [law-breaking employers] have also used these  
          immigration-related threats to keep people from testifying or  
          showing up to depositions in support of workers trying to  
          enforce their rights."  This bill, by prohibiting attorneys from  
                                                                   discouraging employees from testifying at hearings and  
          depositions through immigration-related threats, would reaffirm  
          California's interest in protecting employees and their ability  
          to seek redress under California law.

          5.  Extending whistleblower protection  

          In a recent Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment  
          informational hearing, employees testified that they feared  
          retribution by their employers for making claims against their  
          employers.  These claims included seeking full payment of wages  
          owed to the employees and prohibiting employees from  
          participating in union meetings.  The employees testified that  
          they feared that, by testifying at the committee hearing and  
          exposing the egregious conduct perpetrated by their employers,  
          they would face termination by their employers or be reported by  
          their employers to immigration authorities.  

          Existing law, known as the Whistleblower Protection Statute  
          (WPS), prohibits an employer from preventing an employee from  
          disclosing information, or retaliating against an employee who  
          discloses information, to a government or law enforcement agency  
          where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the  
          information discloses a violation of state or federal statute,  
          or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or  
          regulation.  (Lab. Code Sec. 1102.5.)  This bill would  
          additionally prohibit any person acting on behalf of the  
          employer from preventing an employee from disclosing information  
          or retaliating against an employee who does disclose information  
          and would protect a person who provides information to, or  
          testifies before, any public body conducting an investigation,  
          hearing, or inquiry regarding employer violations of the law.

          Worksafe, in support, argues that "[c]urrent law lacks clear  
          language regarding protection for all workers with regard to  
          whistleblowing.  This creates a culture of fear and intimidation  
          that can no longer be tolerated.  In the UCLA study [Wage Theft  
          and Workplace Violations in Los Angeles:  The Failure of  
          Employment and Labor Law for Low-Wage Workers], a large  
          percentage of workers indicated that they had not complained  
          about serious and dangerous work conditions because of the fear  
                                                                      



          SB 666 (Steinberg)
          Page 11 of ?



          of retaliation[,] i.e. losing their job or having hours cut.   
          Without laws that fully protect all workers when whistleblowing,  
          unscrupulous employers can and will continue to threaten and  
          exploit workers who stand up for their workplace health and  
          safety rights."

          Arguably, this bill would encourage individuals to testify at  
          public hearings to expose unlawful conduct.  In this way, this  
          bill would further the underlying purpose of the WPS, which is  
          to shed light on unlawful employer conduct.

          6.    Opposition concerns  

          The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber), in opposition,  
          argues that this bill would subject employers to significant  
          penalties, loss of their business license, and costly litigation  
          for complying with IRCA, as well as circumvents the exhaustion  
          of administrative remedies under the Fair Employment and Housing  
          Act (FEHA).  CalChamber also states that "[e]qually concerning  
          is SB 666's extension of PAGA [the private attorney general act]  
          to include retaliation/discrimination claims that are generally  
          pursued through FEHA and subject to the exhaustion of  
          administrative remedies.  Specifically, instead of filing a  
          retaliation claim through FEHA based upon race or national  
          origin, SB 666 would allow an employee to side step the  
          exhaustion of administrative remedies that FEHA requires and  
          pursue a PAGA claim for retaliation that allows the employee to  
          obtain statutory penalties . . . as well as employee only  
          attorney's fees.  We believe discrimination and retaliation type  
          claims that are based on a protected class should be mandated to  
          comply with the administrative process of first submitting such  
          claims to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing . . .  
          for review."

          In response, the author argues that SB 666 has nothing to do  
          with federal immigration law or employer sanctions under IRCA.  
          This bill is about the rules that apply to employers who  
          retaliate against workers for engaging in activities protected  
          by California employment law.  Further, the author asserts that  
          this bill "is not in conflict or duplicative of anything at the  
          federal level.  Complying with federal law or federal directive  
          is not retaliation.  But, immigration verification as a means of  
          retaliation for protected activity is abhorrent and exactly what  
          this bill gets at.  The employer didn't need to verify the  
          worker until the worker attempted to assert his/her rights under  
          the law, like being free from sexual harassment, and now the  
                                                                      



          SB 666 (Steinberg)
          Page 12 of ?



          employer wants to re-verify because the worker is asking them to  
          do something about the sexual harassment.  Reporting that worker  
          to immigration, re-verifying that worker because they are trying  
          to exercise their employment right, is an adverse action under  
          [this] bill for purposes of proving retaliation.  Retaliating  
          against complaining employees is not complying with federal law.  
           See Sure-Tan v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984); Singh v. Jutla &  
          C.D. & R.'s Oil, Inc., 214 F.Supp.2d 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2002) and  
          Contreras v. Corinthian Vigor Ins. Co., 25 F.Supp.2d 1053 (N.D.  
          Cal. 1988) (Clarifying that the act of reporting an undocumented  
          person is by itself usually something the law encourages, but  
          doing so with retaliatory intent or for a retaliatory purpose  
          converts it into an unlawful action).  Moreover, Sections 1 and  
          2 of [this] bill impose licensing penalties, which are  
          specifically permitted by IRCA."  It is also important to note  
          that suspension or revocation of a business license by a state  
          entity on the basis of an immigration-related issue was affirmed  
          by the United States Supreme Court as falling well within the  
          confines of the authority left to the states and would not be  
          preempted by federal law.  (Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. v.  
          Whiting (2011) 131 S.Ct. 1968, 1981.) 

          The author further responds to the opposition by stating that  
          "PAGA gives workers a private right of action for serious  
          violations.  This bill adds a new penalty to a violation that  
          otherwise has no penalty.  It makes the penalty for Labor Code  
          Section 98.6 consistent with the whistleblower retaliation  
          penalty.  Right now the penalty applies where an employee acts  
          as a whistleblower.  That same penalty should apply to all  
          employers who retaliate against workers for exercising protected  
          rights.  Currently, those workers are only entitled to back pay  
          minus any wages owed at a new job.  The possibility of a civil  
          penalty of up to $10,000 is necessary to deter law-breaking  
          companies from retaliating against undocumented workers.  PAGA  
          also provides that its default penalties apply only where there  
          is not already a civil penalty provided for in the statute being  
          enforced.  Thus, the penalty that [this] bill creates will not  
          add to PAGA penalties.   [This] bill will define the civil  
          penalties that a PAGA plaintiff could pursue when employers  
          unlawfully retaliate against workers for exercising their rights  
          or protesting unlawful working conditions."  

          With respect to providing an extension of PAGA to include  
          retaliation/discrimination claims generally pursued through FEHA  
          and subject to administrative exhaustion requirements, the  
          author argues that no exhaustion is required under the Labor  
                                                                      



          SB 666 (Steinberg)
          Page 13 of ?



          Code unless the code section specifically requires exhaustion.   
          Further the author notes that this bill neither changes the  
          underlying law on FEHA, nor the administrative exhaustion  
          requirement when a worker seeks to sue for retaliation or other  
          discrimination/ harassment under the FEHA itself.  The author  
          further asserts that "[t]his bill does not change the  
          exhaustion/notice requirement under PAGA, which requires that  
          whenever private attorneys general (employees in this case) seek  
          to collect civil penalties for an employer's violations of the  
          Labor Code, they must first give notice to the employer and to  
          the state Labor and Workforce Development Agency and give the  
          state agency an opportunity to investigate before the workers  
          can actually pursue the PAGA claim."  

          7.    Author's amendments
           
          In order to address the concerns of CalChamber, the author has  
          agreed to accept the following amendments in Committee:

             Author's amendments:

              1.   On page 3, in line 3, insert "(a)" before "A"  
              2.   On page 3, between lines 9 and 10, insert "(b) An  
               employer shall not be subject to suspension or revocation  
               under this section for requiring a prospective or current  
               employee to submit within 72 hours of hire an I-9  
               Employment Eligibility Verification form.


           Support  :  California Immigrant Policy Center; California Labor  
          Federation; California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation;  
          Central American Resource Center; National Employment Law  
          Project; Worksafe

           Opposition  :  California Chamber of Commerce

                                        HISTORY
           
           Source  :  Author

           Related Pending Legislation  :  AB 263 (Hernandez), among other  
          things, contains similar anti-retaliation protections regarding  
          immigration-related practices.  AB 263 is currently in the  
          Assembly Labor and Employment Committee. 

           Prior Legislation  :  None Known
                                                                      



          SB 666 (Steinberg)
          Page 14 of ?




           Prior Vote  :  Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations  
          (Ayes 4, Noes 0)

                                   **************