BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    ”

                                                                    SB 1001  

                                                                    Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  August 3, 2016


                               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


          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  
          (HernŠndez), 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.  


          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 (HernŠndez), 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 (HernŠndez), 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 (HernŠndez) 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)