BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 622
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
622 (Roger Hernández)
As Amended April 27, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Labor |6-1 |Roger Hernández, |Harper |
| | |Chu, Low, McCarty, | |
| | |Patterson, Thurmond | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Appropriations |12-5 |Gomez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Daly, Eggman, |Wagner |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Enacts provisions of law related to the use of the
federal electronic employment verification system known as
E-Verify. Specifically, this bill:
AB 622
Page 2
1)Prohibits an employer or other person, except as required by
federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds, from
using the federal electronic employment verification system
known as E-Verify to check the employment authorization status
of an employee or applicant at a time or in a manner not
required under specified federal law or not authorized under any
memorandum of understanding governing the use of a federal
electronic employment verification system.
2)Specifies that nothing in this bill shall be interpreted to
prohibit an employer from utilizing an employment verification
system in accordance with federal law to check the employment
authorization status of an individual who has been offered
employment.
3)Provides that if the employer receives a tentative
nonconfirmation (or "no-match letter") issued by the Social
Security Administration or the United States Department of
Homeland Security, the employer shall comply with the required
employee notification procedures under any memorandum of
understanding governing the use of the federal E-Verify system.
4)Requires the employer to furnish to the employee any specified
notification containing information specific to the employee's
E-Verify case or any tentative nonconfirmation notice promptly,
but not exceeding the timeframe provided in the Referral Date
Confirmation notice, which is generated by E-Verify after an
employee chooses to contest the tentative nonconfirmation
notice.
5)Provides that, in addition to other remedies available, an
employer who violates this bill is liable for a civil penalty
not $10,000 for each unlawful use of the E-Verify system.
AB 622
Page 3
6)States that this bill is intended to prevent discrimination in
employment rather than to sanction the potential hiring and
employment of employees who are not authorized for employment
under federal law.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill will result in minor and absorbable costs to
the Department of Industrial Relations.
COMMENTS: According to the author, this bill limits the misuse of
E-Verify by prohibiting unscrupulous employers from engaging in
unjust E-Verify practices against workers (consistent with federal
law) and creates financial civil penalties for employers who
maliciously use E-Verify against their workforce.
This bill is co-sponsored by the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and the California Immigrant Policy
Center. They argue that this bill will strengthen California's
protections for all workers by limiting misuse of the E-Verify
program and creating penalties for abuse. The sponsors state that
this bill would codify and clarify existing federal policy by
prohibiting employers from engaging in potentially discriminatory
E-Verify practices, clarifying the notification process for
businesses and workers, and creating financial civil penalties for
employer abuse.
The California Bus Association opposes this bill and argues that
the federal government requires verification of citizenship or
naturalization for purposes of employment, and that many of their
members use E-Verify to comply with this requirement. They argue
that this bill would hinder them from complying with federal law.
Analysis Prepared by:
Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0000370
AB 622
Page 4