BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1001 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1001 (Mitchell) As Amended August 18, 2016 Majority vote SENATE VOTE: 29-10 -------------------------------------------------------------------- |Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+-----------------------+---------------------| |Labor |6-1 |Roger Hernández, Chu, |Patterson | | | |Linder, McCarty, | | | | |O'Donnell, Thurmond | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+-----------------------+---------------------| |Judiciary |8-2 |Mark Stone, Alejo, |Wagner, Gallagher | | | |Chau, Chiu, Cristina | | | | |Garcia, Holden, | | | | |Maienschein, Ting | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+-----------------------+---------------------| |Appropriations |15-5 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Gallagher, | | | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Jones, Obernolte, | | | |Calderon, Chang, Daly, |Wagner | | | |Eggman, Eduardo | | | | |Garcia, Holden, Quirk, | | | | |Santiago, Weber, Wood, | | SB 1001 Page 2 | | |McCarty | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Enacts provisions of law related to unlawful employment practices, as specified. Specifically, this bill: 1)Provides that it is unlawful for an employer, in the course of satisfying specified work authorization requirements of federal law, to: a) Request more or different work authorization documents than are required under specified federal law. b) Refuse to honor documents tendered that in their face reasonably appear to be genuine. c) Refuse to honor documents or work authorization based upon the specific status or term of status that accompanies the authorization to work. d) Attempt to reinvestigate or reverify an incumbent employee's authorization to work using an unfair immigration-related practice. 2)Provides that any person who violates this bill shall be subject to a penalty imposed by the Labor Commissioner and liability for equitable relief. 3)Provides than an applicant for employment or an employee, who SB 1001 Page 3 is subject to an unlawful practice that is prohibited by this bill, or their representative, may file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner. 4)Provides that the penalty recoverable by the applicant or employee, or by the Labor Commissioner, shall not exceed $10,000 per violation. EXISTING LAW: 1)Makes it unlawful for an employer or any other person or entity to engage in, or to direct another person or entity to engage in, "unfair immigration-related practices," as specified, against any person for the purpose of, or with the intent of, retaliating against any person for exercising any right protected, including: a) Filing a complaint or informing any person of an employer's or other party's alleged violation of Labor Code or local ordinance, so long as the complaint or disclosure is made in good faith. b) Seeking information regarding whether an employer or other party is in compliance with the Labor Code or local ordinance. c) Informing a person of his or her potential rights and SB 1001 Page 4 remedies under the Labor Code or local ordinance, and assisting him or her in asserting those rights. 2)Provides that, other than conduct undertaken at the express and specific direction or request of the federal government, an "unfair immigration-related practice" means any of the following practices, when undertaken for retaliatory purposes: a) Requesting more or different documents than are required under federal law, or a refusal to honor documents tendered pursuant to federal law that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine. b) Using the federal E-Verify system to check the employment authorization status of a person at a time or in a manner not required under federal law, or not authorized under any memorandum of understanding governing the use of the federal E-Verify system. c) Threatening to file or the filing of a false police report, or a false report or complaint with any state or federal agency. d) Threatening to contact or contacting immigration authorities. 3)Prohibits an employer or any other person or entity from using the E-Verify system at a time or in a manner not required by a specified federal law or 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, except as required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal SB 1001 Page 5 funds. 4)Requires an employer that uses the E-Verify system to provide to the affected employee any notification issued by the Social Security Administration or the United States Department of Homeland Security containing information specific to the employee's E-Verify case or any tentative nonconfirmation notice. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriation Committee, this bill would result in administrative costs to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) in the range of $147,000 to $437,000. COMMENTS: Current state law protects undocumented workers from retaliation against the individual through unfair immigration-related employment practices. This bill would extend those protections under state law to protect an applicant or employee from document abuse when an employer or other entity requests more or different documents than those required under federal law. Specifically, this bill would prohibit an employer from discriminating against or engaging in unlawful practices against an applicant or employee or from reinvestigating or reverifying an incumbent employee's authorization to work using an unfair immigration-related practice. The author argues that 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, the author argues that although federal law provides protection against document abuse, these protections must be enforced through an overly cumbersome SB 1001 Page 6 process making it extremely difficult for potential workers to avail themselves of this remedy. The California Immigrant Policy Center, co-sponsor, writes: "In 2013, Governor Brown signed into law ?various protections against retaliation ? [this bill] would fortify those protections and strengthen enforcement against the continued and prevalent practice of document abuse by providing a state remedy for workers who are victims of this unlawful discriminatory practice outside of the retaliation context, and more specifically at the point of hire." Analysis Prepared by: Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0004487