How the New California Laws Will Impact Your Business in 2014 and Beyond, Part 3: California Immigration Related Legislation

by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Contact

The final post in this three-part series on the newly-signed legislation in California covers the three immigration-related bills that Governor Brown recently signed. I also discuss two significant bills that the governor vetoed.

CALIFORNIA IMMIGRATION-RELATED LEGISLATION

1.                  AB 263:  Unfair Immigration-Related Practices

AB 263 adds Labor Code sections 1019 et seq. and outlines certain “unfair immigration-related practices.” Prohibited practices include requesting more or different documents than what is required under federal I-9 rules, refusing to honor documents that appear genuine on their face, using federal E-verify to check status in a manner not required or authorized under the program, and threatening to file or filing a false police report. This new law expands protected conduct to include a written or oral complaint by an employee that he or she is owed unpaid wages and prohibits employers from preventing an employee from providing information to or testifying before any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, and prohibits retaliation based on such conduct.

What Employers Should Do

Employers should review and, if necessary, change their procedures related to the completion of I-9s. In addition, employers should adopt a protocol for receiving and handling employee complaints regarding mistakes in their pay.

2.                  SB 666:  Retaliation Based on Immigration/Citizenship Status

SB 666 adds sections 494.6 and 6103.7 to the Business and Professions Code, amends Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1102.5, and adds Labor Code section 244. This new law applies to employers that report or threaten to report

  • an employee’s, former employee’s, or prospective employee’s suspected citizenship or immigration status; or
  • the suspected citizenship or immigration status of a family member of the employee, former employee, or prospective employee

to a federal, state, or local agency. Under the law, employers that threaten to report immigration status because the employee, former employee, or prospective employee exercises a right under the provisions of the Labor, Government, or Civil Code are deemed to have taken an unlawful adverse action against the individual for purposes of establishing a violation of the individual’s legal rights. In addition, this new law provides that an employer’s business license may be suspended or revoked as a result of the employer’s violation of this law.

What Employers Should Do

Employers should notify all supervisors that they may not threaten to use employees’ or applicants’ suspected immigration status as leverage against them.

3.                  AB 60:  Driver’s Licenses for Undocumented Residents

AB 60 allows undocumented California residents to obtain valid driver’s licenses. These driver’s licenses will include language indicating that the license is not valid work authorization. This new law takes effect on January 1, 2015.

What Employers Should Do

Employers should review and, if necessary, change their procedures related to the completion of I-9s.

CALIFORNIA BILLS VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR

Governor Brown vetoed two bills that are worth noting here since different versions of this legislation may be introduced in a subsequent legislative session.

1.                  Privileged Communications Between a Union Agent and Employee

AB 729 would have protected from disclosure confidential communications between a union agent and a represented employee or former employee. This evidentiary privilege would be similar to the attorney-client privilege.

2.                  California Mixed Motive Decision Codified

SB 655 would have amended Government Code section 12965 and would have added section 12940.5 to provide that a plaintiff claiming discrimination or retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) will prevail if he or she can prove a protected activity or characteristic was a “substantial motivating factor” for the adverse employment action. If an employer proves it would have made the same decision regardless of the protected category, then the employee could not recover reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, or declaratory relief. However, the employee could recover injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees, and a statutory penalty of up to $25,000.  This bill was intended to codify the California Supreme Court’s decision this year in Harris v. City of Santa Monica regarding employers’ mixed motives for adverse employment actions.

Part one of this series, “How the New California Laws Will Impact Your Business in 2014 and Beyond, Part 1: Wage and Hour Legislation,” covered California’s new wage and hour laws. Part two, “How the New California Laws Will Impact Your Business in 2014 and Beyond, Part 2: EEO, Disability, and Leave Legislation,” covered the newly-signed EEO, disability, and leave legislation.

Betsy Johnson is the managing shareholder of the Los Angeles office of Ogletree Deakins. Betsy will be discussing these and other California laws at an upcoming breakfast seminar, “New York Employers Doing Business in California.” The program will be held at the Harvard Club in New York City on November 14, 2013. You can register for the seminar here.

 
- See more at: http://blog.ogletreedeakins.com/how-the-new-california-laws-will-impact-your-business-in-2014-and-beyond-part-3-california-immigration-related-legislation/#sthash.fchOSLpg.dpuf

The final post in this three-part series on the newly-signed legislation in California covers the three immigration-related bills that Governor Brown recently signed. I also discuss two significant bills that the governor vetoed.

CALIFORNIA IMMIGRATION-RELATED LEGISLATION

1.                  AB 263:  Unfair Immigration-Related Practices

AB 263 adds Labor Code sections 1019 et seq. and outlines certain “unfair immigration-related practices.” Prohibited practices include requesting more or different documents than what is required under federal I-9 rules, refusing to honor documents that appear genuine on their face, using federal E-verify to check status in a manner not required or authorized under the program, and threatening to file or filing a false police report. This new law expands protected conduct to include a written or oral complaint by an employee that he or she is owed unpaid wages and prohibits employers from preventing an employee from providing information to or testifying before any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, and prohibits retaliation based on such conduct.

What Employers Should Do

Employers should review and, if necessary, change their procedures related to the completion of I-9s. In addition, employers should adopt a protocol for receiving and handling employee complaints regarding mistakes in their pay.

2.                  SB 666:  Retaliation Based on Immigration/Citizenship Status

SB 666 adds sections 494.6 and 6103.7 to the Business and Professions Code, amends Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1102.5, and adds Labor Code section 244. This new law applies to employers that report or threaten to report

  • an employee’s, former employee’s, or prospective employee’s suspected citizenship or immigration status; or
  • the suspected citizenship or immigration status of a family member of the employee, former employee, or prospective employee

to a federal, state, or local agency. Under the law, employers that threaten to report immigration status because the employee, former employee, or prospective employee exercises a right under the provisions of the Labor, Government, or Civil Code are deemed to have taken an unlawful adverse action against the individual for purposes of establishing a violation of the individual’s legal rights. In addition, this new law provides that an employer’s business license may be suspended or revoked as a result of the employer’s violation of this law.

What Employers Should Do

Employers should notify all supervisors that they may not threaten to use employees’ or applicants’ suspected immigration status as leverage against them.

3.                  AB 60:  Driver’s Licenses for Undocumented Residents

AB 60 allows undocumented California residents to obtain valid driver’s licenses. These driver’s licenses will include language indicating that the license is not valid work authorization. This new law takes effect on January 1, 2015.

What Employers Should Do

Employers should review and, if necessary, change their procedures related to the completion of I-9s.

CALIFORNIA BILLS VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR

Governor Brown vetoed two bills that are worth noting here since different versions of this legislation may be introduced in a subsequent legislative session.

1.                  Privileged Communications Between a Union Agent and Employee

AB 729 would have protected from disclosure confidential communications between a union agent and a represented employee or former employee. This evidentiary privilege would be similar to the attorney-client privilege.

2.                  California Mixed Motive Decision Codified

SB 655 would have amended Government Code section 12965 and would have added section 12940.5 to provide that a plaintiff claiming discrimination or retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) will prevail if he or she can prove a protected activity or characteristic was a “substantial motivating factor” for the adverse employment action. If an employer proves it would have made the same decision regardless of the protected category, then the employee could not recover reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, or declaratory relief. However, the employee could recover injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees, and a statutory penalty of up to $25,000.  This bill was intended to codify the California Supreme Court’s decision this year in Harris v. City of Santa Monica regarding employers’ mixed motives for adverse employment actions.

Part one of this series, “How the New California Laws Will Impact Your Business in 2014 and Beyond, Part 1: Wage and Hour Legislation,” covered California’s new wage and hour laws. Part two, “How the New California Laws Will Impact Your Business in 2014 and Beyond, Part 2: EEO, Disability, and Leave Legislation,” covered the newly-signed EEO, disability, and leave legislation.

Betsy Johnson is the managing shareholder of the Los Angeles office of Ogletree Deakins. Betsy will be discussing these and other California laws at an upcoming breakfast seminar, “New York Employers Doing Business in California.” The program will be held at the Harvard Club in New York City on November 14, 2013. You can register for the seminar here.

 
- See more at: http://blog.ogletreedeakins.com/how-the-new-california-laws-will-impact-your-business-in-2014-and-beyond-part-3-california-immigration-related-legislation/#sthash.fchOSLpg.dpuf

The final post in this three-part series on the newly-signed legislation in California covers the three immigration-related bills that Governor Brown recently signed. I also discuss two significant bills that the governor vetoed.

CALIFORNIA IMMIGRATION-RELATED LEGISLATION

1.                  AB 263:  Unfair Immigration-Related Practices

AB 263 adds Labor Code sections 1019 et seq. and outlines certain “unfair immigration-related practices.” Prohibited practices include requesting more or different documents than what is required under federal I-9 rules, refusing to honor documents that appear genuine on their face, using federal E-verify to check status in a manner not required or authorized under the program, and threatening to file or filing a false police report. This new law expands protected conduct to include a written or oral complaint by an employee that he or she is owed unpaid wages and prohibits employers from preventing an employee from providing information to or testifying before any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, and prohibits retaliation based on such conduct.

What Employers Should Do

Employers should review and, if necessary, change their procedures related to the completion of I-9s. In addition, employers should adopt a protocol for receiving and handling employee complaints regarding mistakes in their pay.

2.                  SB 666:  Retaliation Based on Immigration/Citizenship Status

SB 666 adds sections 494.6 and 6103.7 to the Business and Professions Code, amends Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1102.5, and adds Labor Code section 244. This new law applies to employers that report or threaten to report

  • an employee’s, former employee’s, or prospective employee’s suspected citizenship or immigration status; or
  • the suspected citizenship or immigration status of a family member of the employee, former employee, or prospective employee

to a federal, state, or local agency. Under the law, employers that threaten to report immigration status because the employee, former employee, or prospective employee exercises a right under the provisions of the Labor, Government, or Civil Code are deemed to have taken an unlawful adverse action against the individual for purposes of establishing a violation of the individual’s legal rights. In addition, this new law provides that an employer’s business license may be suspended or revoked as a result of the employer’s violation of this law.

What Employers Should Do

Employers should notify all supervisors that they may not threaten to use employees’ or applicants’ suspected immigration status as leverage against them.

3.                  AB 60:  Driver’s Licenses for Undocumented Residents

AB 60 allows undocumented California residents to obtain valid driver’s licenses. These driver’s licenses will include language indicating that the license is not valid work authorization. This new law takes effect on January 1, 2015.

What Employers Should Do

Employers should review and, if necessary, change their procedures related to the completion of I-9s.

CALIFORNIA BILLS VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR

Governor Brown vetoed two bills that are worth noting here since different versions of this legislation may be introduced in a subsequent legislative session.

1.                  Privileged Communications Between a Union Agent and Employee

AB 729 would have protected from disclosure confidential communications between a union agent and a represented employee or former employee. This evidentiary privilege would be similar to the attorney-client privilege.

2.                  California Mixed Motive Decision Codified

SB 655 would have amended Government Code section 12965 and would have added section 12940.5 to provide that a plaintiff claiming discrimination or retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) will prevail if he or she can prove a protected activity or characteristic was a “substantial motivating factor” for the adverse employment action. If an employer proves it would have made the same decision regardless of the protected category, then the employee could not recover reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, or declaratory relief. However, the employee could recover injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees, and a statutory penalty of up to $25,000.  This bill was intended to codify the California Supreme Court’s decision this year in Harris v. City of Santa Monica regarding employers’ mixed motives for adverse employment actions.

Part one of this series, “How the New California Laws Will Impact Your Business in 2014 and Beyond, Part 1: Wage and Hour Legislation,” covered California’s new wage and hour laws. Part two, “How the New California Laws Will Impact Your Business in 2014 and Beyond, Part 2: EEO, Disability, and Leave Legislation,” covered the newly-signed EEO, disability, and leave legislation.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Contact
more
less

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.