BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2159|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2159
Author: Gonzalez (D) and Bonta (D), et al.
Amended: 3/31/16 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 6/14/16
AYES: Jackson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski
NOES: Moorlach, Anderson
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 53-20, 4/7/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Evidence: immigration status
SOURCE: Consumer Attorneys of California
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
DIGEST: This bill provides that in a civil action for personal
injury or wrongful death, evidence of a person's immigration
status shall not be admitted into evidence, nor shall discovery
into a person's immigration status be permitted, except as
specified. This bill provides that it does not affect the
standards of relevance, admissibility, or discovery under
existing law, which recognize that such inquiries can be allowed
where the person seeking to make the inquiry has shown by clear
and convincing evidence that the inquiry is necessary in order
to comply with federal immigration law.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
AB 2159
Page 2
1)Provides that, except as otherwise provided by statute, all
relevant evidence is admissible. Existing law, however,
authorizes a court, in its discretion, to exclude evidence if
its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue
consumption of time, or (b) create substantial danger of undue
prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.
2)Provides that the Legislature finds and declares the
following:
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, employment, civil
rights, and employee housing laws, 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 this inquiry is necessary in order to comply with
federal immigration law.
These provisions are declaratory of existing law.
The provisions are severable. If any provision of the
above provisions or their application is held invalid, that
invalidity is prohibited from affecting other provisions or
applications that can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application. (Civ. Code Sec. 3339; see also
similar provisions at Gov. Code Sec. 7285, Health & Saf.
Code Sec. 24000, Lab. Code Sec. 1171.5.)
1)Provides that the immigration status of a minor child seeking
AB 2159
Page 3
recovery under any applicable law is irrelevant to the issues
of liability or remedy, except for employment-related
prospective injunctive relief that would directly violate
federal law. Existing law further prohibits discovery or
other inquiry in a civil action or proceeding relating to a
minor child's immigration status except where the minor
child's claims place the minor child's immigration status
directly in contention or 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.
2)Provides in Rodriguez v. Kline (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1146,
1148-1149 that an individual injured in the United States who
is subject to deportation is not entitled to be compensated
based upon his or her projected earning capacity in the U.S.,
but rather may only recover future lost wages based on
projected earning capacity in the country of his or her lawful
citizenship.
This bill:
1)Adds to the Evidence Code that in a civil action for personal
injury or wrongful death, evidence of a person's immigration
status shall not be admitted into evidence, nor shall
discovery into a person's immigration status be permitted.
2)Provides that this added prohibition against the admissibility
of, or discovery into, a person's immigration status does not
affect the standards of relevance, admissibility, or discovery
prescribed by the Civil, Government, Health and Safety, and
Labor Codes, above, as specified.
Background
In 2002, the United States Supreme Court, in Hoffman Plastic
AB 2159
Page 4
Compounds Inc. v. NLRB (2002) 535 U.S. 137, held that the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is precluded from awarding
backpay to undocumented workers because an award to these
specific workers would be beyond the bounds of NLRB's remedial
discretion and run counter to the federal Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Even though the workers might be
victims of unfair labor practices, the workers were never
legally authorized to work in the United States, and as a
result, the Court held that awarding backpay to undocumented
immigrants would "unduly trench upon explicit statutory
prohibitions critical to federal immigration policy," as
expressed in IRCA and "would encourage the successful evasion of
apprehension by immigration authorities, condone prior
violations of the immigration laws, and encourage future
violations." (Id. at 151, noting at 152 that NLRB's "lack of
authority to award backpay does not mean that the employer gets
off scot-free. The Board here has already imposed other
significant sanctions against Hoffman - sanctions Hoffman does
not challenge.")
In response to Hoffman, this Legislature enacted an urgency
measure, SB 1818 (Romero, Chapter 1071, Statutes of 2002) to
limit the potential effects of that decision on this state's
labor and civil rights laws. The bill codified substantially
similar legislative findings and declarations throughout the
Civil Code, the Government Code, the Labor Code, and the Health
and Safety Code relative to enforcement actions relating to the
rights of immigrants. For example, the following findings and
declarations were codified in Section 3339 of the Civil Code:
(1) 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; (2) for purposes of enforcing
state labor, employment, civil rights, and employee housing
laws, a person's immigration status is irrelevant to the issue
of liability and no inquiry shall be permitted into a person's
immigration status except when necessary to comply with federal
immigration law; and (3) the bill's provisions are declaratory
of existing law.
AB 2159
Page 5
Additionally, last year, AB 560 (Gomez, Chapter 151, Statutes of
2015) codified that the immigration status of children is
irrelevant to issues of liability or remedy and is generally
inadmissible for purposes of discovery, except as specified.
The bill exempted employment-related prospective injunctive
relief that would directly violate federal law and also allowed
for discovery where the minor child's claims place the minor
child's immigration status directly in contention or 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. (See Civ. Code Sec. 3339.5.)
This bill, co-sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California
and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
seeks to now generally provide that evidence of a person's
immigration status shall not be admitted into evidence, nor
shall discovery into a person's immigration status be permitted,
in a civil action for personal injury or wrongful death.
Comments
As stated by the author:
Under Rodriguez v Kline (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1147,
Californians are at a disadvantage because their immigration
status is used against them during the process of determining
payment of damages solely related to future income loss.
Moreover, the precedent set by the case is being unjustly
applied to cases involving the recovery of future medical
costs.
The California Legislature has clearly indicated the
importance of protecting the rights of undocumented people not
only in the employment setting, but in all other respects. The
state's Labor Code, Civil Code, and Government Codes all
include language expressing protections to all individuals
AB 2159
Page 6
regardless of immigration status.
However, greater protections are needed for individuals
seeking recovery of fair compensation for their injuries
through our civil justice system. Assembly Bill 2159 will
ensure an injured person in [California] receives fair and
just compensation for future income loss and future medical
cost regardless of their immigration status.
Co-sponsor, Consumer Attorneys of California adds that "[o]ver
the past 20 years, this Legislature has granted undocumented
Californians the right to obtain drivers licenses, qualify for
in-state tuition, and obtain law and other professional
licenses. They are also expressly protected by California's
labor laws. Further, it is longstanding law that an
undocumented worker can receive workers' compensation without
any inquiry into immigration status. Despite these advances,
many undocumented individuals face efforts to limit their
ability to recover money to support their families and seek
adequate medical care when they are injured and unable to work.
[ . . . ] This bill would simply state that immigration status
is also irrelevant for adults pursuing a personal injury or
wrongful death action. [ . . . ]
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified6/17/16)
Consumer Attorneys of California (co-source)
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (co-source)
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian Americans Advancing Justice- California
California Catholic Conference
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Immigrant Policy Center
AB 2159
Page 7
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
City of Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Congress of California Seniors
Consumer Federation of California
Engineer & Scientists of California, Local 20, IFPTE Local 20,
AFL-CIO
Equality California
International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Mexican American Bar Association of Los Angeles County
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
Our Family Coalition
PolicyLink
Professional & Technical Engineers, IFPTE Local 21, AFL-CIO
UNITE-HERE, AFL-CIO
Southern California Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers
Association
UNITE HERE Local 30
Utilities Workers Union of America, Local 132, AFL-CIO
OPPOSITION: (Verified6/17/16)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support of the bill, PolicyLink
writes that:
While state lawmakers have approved many protections for
undocumented immigrants, those protections are substantially
undermined by one nearly 30-year-old case, Rodriguez v. Kline,
186 Cal.App.3d 1147 (1986). [ . . . ]
Besides reducing recovery for lost future earnings, evidence
regarding a plaintiff's immigration status can cause other
harms. Recently, Rodriguez has been used in some lawsuits to
AB 2159
Page 8
lower the projected cost of an injured immigrant's future
medical care, thereby decreasing the amount of compensation
plaintiffs in those cases could receive for future medical
expenses. Perhaps more alarmingly, calling a person's
immigration status into question may prevent recovery
altogether. Once an individual's legal status as an immigrant
is raised, he or she is faced with a difficult choice: either
forego recovery or continue with the case and risk
deportation. Unsurprisingly, many may choose the former.
An undocumented plaintiff should not be forced to abandon a
legitimate civil action or receive less compensation due to
his or her immigration status. This sends a message that our
courts attach less value to the pain and suffering of
undocumented Californians, even though they contribute greatly
to the economic and cultural fabric of the state and, thus,
deserve equal and fair treatment in the courts.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 53-20, 4/7/16
AYES: Alejo, Atkins, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown,
Burke, Calderon, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia,
Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández,
Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein,
McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Olsen, Quirk,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone,
Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Dahle, Beth
Gaines, Grove, Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes,
Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron,
Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Campos, Chang, Chávez, Gallagher, Hadley,
Levine
Prepared by:Ronak Daylami / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
6/17/16 15:03:46
AB 2159
Page 9
**** END ****