Labor Code §1019 – Immigration Threats as Retaliation

Labor Code §1019 makes it illegal for an employer, or anyone else, to use an “unfair immigration-related practice,” such as threatening to call immigration authorities or demanding extra work-authorization documents, to retaliate against you for exercising your workplace rights. If the practice happens within 90 days after you exercised those rights, the law presumes it was retaliation unless the employer rebuts that presumption.

A companion section, §1019.1, separately bans document abuse during employment verification, and AB 2495 broadens §1019 starting January 1, 2027. This page explains what the statute says. For what the 2027 changes mean in practice and what to do when you are threatened, see our post on the new law that makes immigration threats at work illegal and our guide to workplace immigration rights in California.

What Labor Code §1019 says

The text below is the version in effect through December 31, 2026; it was last amended effective January 1, 2016.

Subdivision	What it says (paraphrased)
(a)	An employer or any other person or entity can’t engage in, or direct someone else to engage in, an unfair immigration-related practice against any person to retaliate for exercising a right protected under the Labor Code or a local ordinance that applies to employees.
(a)(1)–(3)	Protected activity includes filing a good-faith complaint or telling anyone about an alleged violation, seeking information about whether an employer is following the law, and telling someone about their rights or helping them assert those rights.
(b)(1)	Defines the four unfair immigration-related practices (listed below).
(b)(2)	Conduct taken at “the express and specific direction or request of the federal government” doesn’t count.
(c)	A practice within 90 days of your protected activity creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation.
(d)	You can sue. A court can suspend the violator’s business licenses, and an employee or other person subjected to the practice who wins gets attorney’s fees and costs.
(e)	Defines “license” and makes each incident a separate “violation,” however many employees it affects.

Key fact

Who section 1019 covers

The prohibition reaches “an employer or any other person or entity,” so it isn’t limited to the company that signs your paycheck. A supervisor, a labor contractor or another business on a shared worksite can violate it. It protects “any person” who exercised a protected right, including a coworker who told you about your rights or helped you assert them (subdivision (a)(3)).

Under Labor Code 1171.5, California’s labor protections are available to workers regardless of immigration status, and the Labor Commissioner says it does not ask about the immigration status of anyone seeking help. Section 1171.5 also says immigration status is irrelevant to liability when state labor laws are enforced, and from 2027 AB 2495 writes that rule expressly into section 1019.

---

The four unfair immigration-related practices

Under §1019(b)(1), each of these is an unfair immigration-related practice when used for a retaliatory purpose:

1. Asking for more or different documents than federal employment-verification law requires, or refusing documents that on their face reasonably appear genuine.
2. Using E-Verify to check work authorization at a time or in a manner federal law doesn’t require, or that the employer’s E-Verify agreement doesn’t authorize.
3. Threatening to file, or filing, a false police report or a false report or complaint with any state or federal agency.
4. Threatening to contact, or contacting, immigration authorities.

A threat alone is enough. Your employer doesn’t have to actually call anyone for the conduct to qualify.

Section 1019.1: document abuse in employment verification

Section 1019.1 applies when an employer is completing federal employment verification (the I-9 process). It makes it unlawful to:

• Request more or different documents than federal law requires.
• Refuse documents that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine.
• Refuse documents or work authorization because of the specific status or term of status that comes with them.
• Try to reinvestigate or reverify a current employee’s work authorization through an unfair immigration-related practice.

Unlike §1019, the first three prohibitions in section 1019.1 don’t depend on a retaliatory motive. A violator faces a penalty imposed by the Labor Commissioner and equitable relief, with a penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. An applicant or employee, or a representative, can file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code 98.7.

---

What changes on January 1, 2027 (AB 2495)

AB 2495 (Statutes of 2026, chapter 748) amends section 1019 effective January 1, 2027. Based on the Legislative Counsel’s Digest of the chaptered bill and the Senate Judiciary Committee analysis, it:

• Extends protection to retaliation for exercising, or attempting to exercise, rights under any local, state or federal statute or regulation that applies to employees, not just the Labor Code and local ordinances.
• Adds a ban on other conduct related to a person’s perceived immigration status that would reasonably tend to discourage a worker from exercising a legal right.
• States that a person’s actual immigration status is irrelevant to liability.
• Defines “employee” for the section to include applicants and former employees.
• Adds a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per employee or person for each violation, awarded to the person who suffered it.

Until then, the current text above controls. Our AB 2495 post covers the new law in more detail.

By the numbers$10,000

Exceptions

• Federal direction: conduct taken at the express and specific direction or request of the federal government isn’t an unfair immigration-related practice under §1019(b)(2).
• Lawful verification: completing the I-9 process the way federal law requires, at the time it requires, isn’t a violation. The problem is asking for more, rejecting valid documents, or rechecking when the law doesn’t call for it.
• Professional licenses: the license-suspension remedy doesn’t reach professional licenses, only the business licenses tied to the location where the practice happened.

---

Penalties and remedies

• Lawsuit: the affected employee or other person, or their representative, can sue for equitable relief and any applicable damages or penalties (§1019(d)(1)).
• License suspension: after finding a violation, a court can order suspension of the violator’s business licenses for up to 14 days for a first violation, up to 30 days for a second, and up to 90 days for a third or later violation (§1019(d)(2)). The court considers whether the practice was knowing, the employer’s good-faith efforts to fix it after notice, and the harm to other workers, including those of other employers on a shared job site.
• Attorney’s fees: an employee or other person who was subjected to the practice and wins a §1019 lawsuit recovers reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness costs (§1019(d)(4)). The fee provision runs only to that person; it doesn’t give fees to an employer that wins.
• Labor Commissioner: the Commissioner can investigate suspected immigration-related retaliation under §§244, 1019 and 1019.1 on its own, without a complaint (Labor Code 98.7(a)(2)).
• Other retaliation laws: under Labor Code 244(b), reporting or threatening to report the suspected immigration status of a worker or family member because the worker used a right under the Labor Code, Government Code or Civil Code is an adverse action, which supports claims such as §98.6 retaliation.

---

Deadlines

Item	Timing	Source
Presumption of retaliation	Practice occurs within 90 days of protected activity (a window, not a filing deadline)	Labor Code 1019(c)
Retaliation complaint with the Labor Commissioner	1 year after the violation; may be extended for good cause	Labor Code 98.7(a)(1)
Lawsuit under §1019	Section 1019 sets no deadline of its own; courts generally apply 3 years to liabilities created by statute, and employers may argue a shorter period for penalties	Code Civ. Proc. 338(a), 340(a)
AB 2495 changes	Take effect January 1, 2027	Stats. 2026, ch. 748

---

Related sections

Law	What it adds
Labor Code 1019.1	Bans document abuse in employment verification; up to $10,000 per violation
Labor Code 244(b)	Reporting or threatening to report immigration status is an adverse action
Labor Code 98.7	How to file a retaliation complaint with the Labor Commissioner
Labor Code 90.2	Employer notice to workers of I-9 inspections
Labor Code 1550–1559	Workplace Know Your Rights Act notice
Labor Code 1102.5	Whistleblower protection for reporting suspected violations of law

---

How it plays out

💡 Example: Ana, a hypothetical restaurant cook, files a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner on March 2, 2026 for unpaid overtime. On April 13, 2026, her manager tells her that if she doesn’t drop the claim, he will call immigration. That threat came 42 days after her claim (29 days left in March plus 13 in April), well inside the 90-day window, so §1019(c) presumes it was retaliation. Threatening to contact immigration authorities is one of the four listed practices, so the threat is enough even if he never makes the call. Ana can sue for damages and equitable relief and recover her attorney’s fees if she wins, and a court can suspend the restaurant’s business licenses for up to 14 days for a first violation. She also has until April 13, 2027 to file a retaliation complaint with the Labor Commissioner.

---

What to do

1. Write down the exact words used, the date, where it happened and who heard it. Save texts, voicemails and emails.
2. Note the date of your complaint or other protected activity, so the 90-day window is clear.
3. If you’re asked to re-submit work documents, write down what was requested and when.
4. For practical steps on ICE visits and immigration notices at work, see our guide to ICE at California job sites. For questions about your own immigration case, talk with an immigration attorney.

---

Frequently asked questions

Is a threat enough, or does my employer have to actually call ICE?

A threat is enough. Section 1019(b)(1) lists “threatening to contact or contacting” immigration authorities, and threatening to file a false report, as unfair immigration-related practices.

Does Labor Code 1019 protect undocumented workers?

Yes. The statute protects “any person” who exercises a protected right, and Labor Code 1171.5 makes California’s labor protections available regardless of immigration status. From January 1, 2027, AB 2495 adds that actual immigration status is irrelevant to liability under section 1019.

Can my employer ask me for new I-9 documents?

Not beyond what federal law requires. Section 1019.1 bars requesting more or different documents, refusing documents that appear genuine, and reverifying current employees through an unfair immigration-related practice.

What if my employer says it was following federal orders?

Conduct taken at the express and specific direction or request of the federal government is excluded. A general claim of “following the rules” isn’t the same as a specific federal directive.

Can a business lose its license over this?

Yes. A court that finds a violation can order the suspension of the business licenses tied to that location, for up to 14, 30 or 90 days depending on whether it is a first, second or later violation.

---

Sources

• Labor Code 1019 (California Legislative Information)
• Labor Code 1019.1
• Labor Code 244
• Labor Code 98.7
• AB 2495 (2026), Statutes of 2026, chapter 748
• Senate Judiciary Committee analysis of AB 2495
• Labor Commissioner news release 2025-52: immigrant worker protections
• Labor Commissioner: Laws prohibiting retaliation and discrimination

---