BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    ”

                                                                    SB 1001

                                                                    Page  1


          1001 (Mitchell)

          As Amended  August 18, 2016

          Majority vote

          SENATE VOTE:  29-10

          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                   |Noes                 |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |Labor           |6-1  |Roger HernŠndez, 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  

             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  

          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


          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  

          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: