BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 666| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 666 Author: Steinberg (D), et al. Amended: 5/7/13 Vote: 21 SENATE LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 4-0, 4/24/13 AYES: Lieu, Wyland, Leno, Yee NO VOTE RECORDED: Padilla SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 6-1, 4/30/13 AYES: Evans, Walters, Corbett, Jackson, Leno, Monning NOES: Anderson SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/23/13 AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg NOES: Walters, Gaines SUBJECT : Employment: retaliation SOURCE : California Labor Federation DIGEST : This bill suspends or revokes an employers business license for threatening to retaliate or retaliating against an employee based citizenship or immigration status; provides 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/her employment; and also establishes a civil penalty up to $10,000 for violations of its provisions. CONTINUED SB 666 Page 2 ANALYSIS : Existing state and federal law contains provisions that define unlawful discrimination and lawful employment practices by employers and employment agencies to protect both prospective and current employees against employment discrimination. 1. Existing law, among other things, provides the following: A. Prohibits an employer from discharging, or in any manner discriminating against, any employee or applicant for employment because he/she has engaged in prescribed protected conduct relating to the enforcement of the employee's or applicant's rights. B. Any employee that is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of his/her employment because the employee engaged in any protected conduct - such as making a bona fide complaint or claim to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement - is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits. C. Any employer who willfully refuses to hire, promote, or otherwise restore an employee or former employee who has been determined to be eligible for rehiring or promotion by a grievance procedure, arbitration, or hearing authorized by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor. 2. Regarding employee sharing of information with government entities, existing law: A. Specifies that an employer may not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where he/she has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation or noncompliance with state or federal law. B. Prohibits and employer from retaliating against an employee for disclosing this type of information to a government or law enforcement agency. CONTINUED SB 666 Page 3 C. Under existing law, in addition to other penalties, an employer that is a corporation or limited liability company is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each violation. However, these provisions do not apply to rules, regulations, or policies implementing the confidentiality of the lawyer-client privilege, the physician-patient privilege, or trade secret information. The existing Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits harassment and discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, mental and physical disability, medical condition, age, pregnancy, denial of medical and family care leave, or pregnancy disability leave and/or retaliation for protesting illegal discrimination related to one of these categories. Under existing state law, 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 have been employed in the state. In addition, for purposes of enforcing state labor and employment laws, a person's immigration status is irrelevant to the issue of liability or in proceedings, where no inquiry is permitted into a person's immigration status except where the person seeking the inquiry has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the inquiry is necessary in order to comply with federal immigration law. Existing law establishes grounds for suspension or revocation of certain business and professional licenses. Under the existing State Bar Act, specific causes are established for the disbarment or suspension of a member of the State Bar. This bill strengthens labor law protections against threats and intimidation by employers, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, for employees who engage in protected activity. Specifically, this bill: CONTINUED SB 666 Page 4 1. Prohibits any person acting on behalf of the employer [current law already prohibits employers] from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency. Existing law already contains these prohibitions with respect to the employer. 2. Prohibits an employer or any person acting on behalf of the employer from preventing, or retaliating against, an employee for providing information to [or testifying before] any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry. 3. Prohibits an employer from retaliating or taking adverse action against [current law protects against discharge or discrimination] any employee or applicant for employment because he/she has engaged in protected conduct (such as rights under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner). A. Expands the protected conduct to include a written or oral complaint by an employee that he/she is owed unpaid wages. B. Subjects an employer that is a corporation or limited liability company to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation of these provisions. 4. Makes it a cause for suspension, disbarment, or other discipline for any member of the State Bar to report, or threaten to report, the immigration status of a witness or party to a civil or administrative action -or his/her family member- to a federal, state, or local agency because the witness or party exercises a right related to his/her employment. 5. Specifies that a business license is subject to suspension or revocation if a current, former, or prospective employee of the licensee attempts to exercise a right related to his/her employment or any terms, conditions, or benefits protected by state law and, in reaction, the licensee threatens to retaliate or retaliates based on the employee's citizenship or immigration status. 6. Provides that it is not necessary for an individual to CONTINUED SB 666 Page 5 exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in order to bring a civil action under Labor Code, unless the code section under which the action is brought expressly requires exhaustion. 7. Specifies that reporting (or threatening to report) an employee's, former employee's, or prospective employee's citizenship or immigration status, or that of his/her family member, to a federal, state, or local agency because he/she exercises a protected right constitutes an adverse action for purposes of establishing a violation of the designated right. 8. Specifies that an employer shall not be subject to suspension or revocation for requiring a prospective or current employee to submit, within three business days of the first day of work for pay, an I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification form. Comments Hiring Process - Federal Law . Under existing law, it is illegal for a person or other entity to "knowingly" hire, recruit, or refer for employment an unauthorized individual or any individual without complying with specified employment verification procedures. Among other things, the law requires employers to verify that every new hire is either a United States (U.S.) citizen or authorized to work in the United States. All employers are required to have new employees complete form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, upon hire. New employees, within three days of being hired, must show their employers documentation establishing identity and eligibility to work in the U.S. The E-Verify Program is an internet-based system, operated by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service in partnership with the Social Security Administration, which enables participating employers to use the program, on a voluntary basis, to verify that the employees they hire are authorized to work in the U.S. The effectiveness of E-Verify, however, has been the subject of concern for many including the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). A 2010 GAO report, titled "Employment Verification: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-Verify, but Significant Challenges Remain," found that the CONTINUED SB 666 Page 6 system still faces challenges, including the rate of tentative non-confirmation letters (TNCs) that may occur because of an employee's failure to update his/her nationalization status in SSA databases, failure to report a change in his/her name to SSA or an employer's error in entering the employee's data into the system. The GAO report notes that of the 22,512 TNCs resulting from name mismatches in 2009; approximately 76% were for citizens and approximately 24% for noncitizens. Both state and federal law contain various provisions prohibiting employment discrimination on different bases, including, but not limited to, the race, color, sex, religion, or marital status of a person. In addition, existing federal law pertaining to E-Verify specifies that, among other things, employers may not use E-Verify to discriminate against any job applicant or new hire on the basis of his/her national origin, citizenship, or immigration status; employers may not use the system to pre-screen applicants for employment; employers may not verify newly hired employees selectively; and employers cannot take any adverse action against an employee based upon E-Verify unless the program issues a Final Non-confirmation. Background on California's Immigrant Workforce . Immigrants comprise a growing part of the United States labor force. Immigrant workers, both documented and undocumented, are a significant presence in California's workplace and economy. According to a National Employment Law Project (NELP) report, in 2010, 23.1 million foreign-born persons participated in the civilian labor force. Of these workers, 5.2% (about eight million) form part of the U.S. undocumented labor force. An estimated 2.6 million undocumented immigrants reside in California- approximately seven percent of the State's total population and one-fourth of the population of undocumented immigrants nationwide. Almost one in every ten workers in California is undocumented. ("Workers' Rights on ICE: How Immigration Reform Can Stop Retaliation and Advance Labor Rights," NELP, February 2013) Most undocumented immigrants work in traditionally low-wage occupations such as agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and service industries, where workers face the greatest risk for exploitation and are more likely to experience violations of wage and hour laws. A landmark study of low-wage workers in Los Angeles ("Wage Theft and Workplace Violations in LA: The CONTINUED SB 666 Page 7 Failure of Employment and Labor Law for Low-Wage Workers," UCLA 2010) found that almost 76% of undocumented workers had worked off-the-clock without pay and over 85% had not received overtime pay. The study also found that undocumented workers experienced these violations at rates higher than their native-born counterparts. Moreover, immigrant workers are disproportionately likely to be injured or killed on the job. The NELP report found that employers and their agents have far too frequently shown that they will use immigration status as a tool against worker exercising their employment rights. The report offers several examples, including one in which the Labor Commissioner found that a San Jose, California employer owed an immigrant worker $50,000 for unpaid wages. Upset with the ruling, the employer harassed the worker in his home and threatened to report him to immigration. Prior legislation AB 1236 (Fong, Chapter 691, Statutes of 2011) enacted the Employment Acceleration Act to prohibit the state, or a city, county, city and county, or special district, from requiring an employer to use an electronic employment verification system except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Department of Industrial Relations estimates that it incurs costs of $665,000 (special funds) ongoing to implement the provisions of this bill. SUPPORT : (Verified 5/24/13) California Labor Federation (source) California Employment Lawyers Association California Immigrant Policy Center California Nurses Association California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation California School employees Association Central American Resource Center Equal Rights Advocates CONTINUED SB 666 Page 8 Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund National Employment Law Project San Mateo County Central Labor Council Service Employees International Union California UAW Local 5810 United Farm Workers Worksafe ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, there are countless examples of immigrant workers attempting to exercise their employment rights only to have their employer threaten to report them or actually report them or their family members to immigration or law enforcement under false charges. The reality, proponents argue, is that immigration-related retaliation and threats undermine workers' rights for all workers. Those who might be willing to act as whistleblowers and expose unfair and illegal treatment worry they will be the cause of serious harm to their co-workers for calling attention to abuses. Meanwhile, employers who are following the law are at a competitive disadvantage against those that exploit workers. Also, the author notes, "The discipline provided for in Section 6103.7 does not supplant, but is cumulative to, existing disciplinary sanctions. In particular, the enactment of Section 6103.7 is not intended to limit or abrogate an attorney's duty to comply with Rule 5-100 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, or to limit or preclude the State Bar's enforcement of Rule 5-100." Additionally, proponents argue that unscrupulous attorneys 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. Proponents argue that our current statutory scheme does little to deter a law-breaking business from using the immigration status of the worker, co-worker, or family member to create an atmosphere of fear that prevents workers from demanding their rights in the workplace. They argue that 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. Proponents contend that this bill will not only deter unscrupulous employers from violating the rights of immigrant workers, but CONTINUED SB 666 Page 9 will also lift the veil of silence in the workplace. Overall, proponents argue that the state has both a right and an obligation to protect workers and to ensure that basic labor laws can be enforced. Employers who engage in these forms of retaliation must be held accountable. They argue that this bill clarifies, strengthens and expands existing retaliation statutes to better address the realities of workplace retaliation, especially as it affects immigrant workers. PQ:d 5/24/13 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED