BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1001
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 1001
(Mitchell) - As Amended March 28, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Labor and Employment |Vote:|6 - 1 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Judiciary | |8 - 2 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill prohibits an employer, or any other person or entity,
from discriminating against or engaging in unfair
immigration-related practices against an applicant or employee.
The bill also prohibits reinvestigation or reverification of an
SB 1001
Page 2
incumbent employee's authorization, unless required by federal
law. Specifically, this bill:
1)States it is unlawful and an unfair immigration-related
practice for an employer or any other person or entity to, or
to direct another person to, discriminate against an applicant
for employment or an employee with authorization to work based
upon the specific status, or term of status, that accompanies
the authorization to work.
2)Authorizes an applicant for employment or an employee, who is
subject to an unfair immigration-related practice that is
prohibited by this bill, to bring a civil action for equitable
relief and any applicable damages or penalties, including
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Administrative costs to the Department of Industrial Relations
(DIR) Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) in the
range of $147,000 to $437,000 (Labor Enforcement Compliance
Fund). This bill mirrors protections created by AB 263
(Hernández), Chapter 732, Statutes of 2013, which made threats
against immigration status, and reverification of work
authorization, an unlawful immigration related practice.
Extending those protections to applicants would significantly
widen the pool of potential claimants however; DIR is unable to
predict how many claimants would seek this protection.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)
of 1986, all workers are required to show proof of identity
SB 1001
Page 3
and work authorization at the time of hire through the I-9
form. However, according to the California Immigrant Policy
Center (CIPC), employers are asking employees for additional
documents to show proof of identity and/or work authorization
or are not accepting legally acceptable documents, especially
from immigrant workers. Some examples of this document abuse
include employers asking their employees for a copy of their
U.S. passport, a copy of their green card, or not accepting an
Employment Authorization Document because it has a future
expiration date.
CIPC and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
are co-sponsoring this bill to protect immigrant workers by
prohibiting employers from requesting specific documentation
not required by the I-9 form or refusing to accept legally
acceptable documents at the time of hiring.
2)Background. AB 263 (Hernández), Chapter 732, Statutes of 2013,
provided various protections against retaliation, including
the unlawful practice of document abuse, only when employed as
a retaliation tool against workers who exercise their
workplace rights.
AB 2751 (Hernández), Chapter 79, Statutes of 2014, further
clarified the award of a civil penalty of up to $10,000
against an employer who discriminates, retaliates, or takes
any adverse action against an employee or applicant for
employment, who exercises a right protected under local and
state labor and employment laws, including employers who
unlawfully engage in retaliatory immigration-related
employment practices.
Last year, AB 622 (Hernández) was enacted to prohibit an
employer or any other person or entity from using the E-Verify
system at a time or in a manner not required by federal law or
SB 1001
Page 4
not authorized by a federal agency memorandum of understanding
to check the employment authorization status of an existing
employee or an applicant who has not received an offer of
employment, as specified. The bill provided for a civil
penalty of $10,000 for each violation of its provisions.
According to the author of this bill, while state law
prohibits document abuse if it is retaliatory in nature, there
is no protection against document abuse at the initial point
of an individual's application for employment. Further,
supporters of this bill state that although federal law
provides protection against document abuse, the enforcement of
such protections involves a cumbersome administrative process
through the Office of the Special Counsel for
Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, followed by
the review by an administrative judge, and potential review by
the Court of Appeals. This is a complex and often inaccessible
option, particularly for low wage workers.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081