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