Businesses are constantly challenged by the ever-evolving landscape of labor and employment law, with new legislation and judicial developments occurring almost daily fueling a seemingly never-ending stream of litigation. For companies operating in multiple states, complying with this patchwork of federal, state, and local laws and developments can be daunting. Knowing these issues are a top concern for management and in-house counsel, Morrison Foerster keeps pace with this rapidly evolving landscape. MoFo ELC equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues covering key judicial, litigation and legislative developments, their implications for employers, and strategies to ensure compliance and avoid lawsuits.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Editors

turnbull_andrew_blog_150x150.png

turnbull_andrew_common_640x280.jpg

turnbull_andrew_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

turnbull_andrew_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

turnbull_andrew_social_600x600.jpg

Co-Chair, Global Employment and Labor Practice

Partner

Andrew Turnbull represents companies on a broad range of labor and employment litigation and counseling matters. He has successfully defended clients in complex employment litigation before federal and state courts and administrative agencies. A primary focus of his practice involves helping companies navigate the unique employment issues that arise when doing business with the federal government, including advising on all aspects of OFCCP compliance, creating and implementing affirmative action plans, defending OFCCP audits and onsite investigations, conducting mock pay equity audits, drafting and developing business ethics policies and programs, and complying with the Service Contract Act, E-Verify, and the Drug Free Workplace Act.

Andrew Turnbull

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

MoFo ELC equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues, covering key judicial, litigation, and legislative developments, their implications for employers, and strategies to ensure compliance and avoid lawsuits. To learn more about our capabilities, please visit the <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/employment-labor" target="_blank">Employment + Labor</a> practice page and read about our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/people?practices=Employment%20%2B%20Labor" target="_blank">Team</a>.

Welcome to the MoFo ELC Blog

elcblog-header-image.jpg

Welcome to the MoFo ELC Blog

elcblog-header-image

MoFo ELC equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues covering key judicial, litigation and legislati

Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Cookies

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contract Insights Blog

Government Contract Insights

Looks behind the headlines to explore the trends, identify the opportunities, analyze the issues, and provide guidance for science and technology-based companies.

MoFo Tech Blog

News and thought leadership from lawyers whoa re adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.

 MoFo+ Blog

MoFo+

Read our Employment Law Commentary blog for the latest insights in employment and labor law, covering issues from ADA compliance to trade secrets protection.

Employment Law Commentary

MoFo ELC | Latest Employment Law Developments and Commentary

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

ELC Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

By submitting your data to subscribe to this blog, you approved Morrison & Foerster LLP to email you future information about MoFo news and events. You may opt-out at any time by sending a request to <a href="mailto:mofonews@mofo.com" target="_self">mofonews@mofo.com</a>. To learn more about how Morrison & Foerster LLP uses and protects your personal data, please view our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html" target="_self">Privacy Policy</a> at <a href="https://www.mofo.com/">www.mofo.com</a>.

Never miss a post from MoFo ELC. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

Practical Answers to Employment Law Issues

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Andrew R. Turnbull

More

DOJ Creates Initiative to Pursue Aggressive False Claims Act Enforcement Against DEI Programs and Civil Rights Violations

Fourth Circuit Stays Injunction of Trump DEI Executive Orders

President Trump Rescinds Affirmative Action for Federal Contractors and Requires Enforcement Plan to End Unlawful DEI at Private Companies

FAR Council Withdraws “Pay Equity and Transparency” Proposed Rule

The “Preventative Duty”: New Law Places Active Duty on Employers in the UK to Prevent Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

LinkedIN

The increasingly polarized political climate has placed California employers in the middle of the dispute between the federal and California governments over immigration policy.  On October 5, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450) into law.  The new statute, which took effect on January 1, 2018, imposes various prohibitions and requirements on California employers with regard to federal immigration enforcement actions in the workplace.  For example, whereas employers could previously consent to federal agents’ inspection of the workplace and review of employee records, this is no longer true in California under state law.  Violation of AB 450 could result in thousands of dollars in penalties for an employer.  As discussed below, the federal government is currently challenging AB 450 on preemption grounds.  While the future of AB 450 is uncertain, it remains in effect for now.Potential Preemption Of AB 450 By Federal LawThe federal government filed a lawsuit on March 6, 2018 against California, asking for AB 450 and other recently enacted California “sanctuary” laws to be declared constitutionally invalid and seeking injunctions against the enforcement of these laws.  The federal government has already moved for a preliminary injunction, arguing that these laws obstruct the enforcement of federal law, including the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  In its court filings, the federal government has cited to Arizona v. United States, a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case in which certain provisions of Arizona law that criminalized undocumented presence and work and authorized warrantless arrests of aliens believed to be removable from the United States were held to be preempted by federal law.  The hearing on the federal government’s preliminary injunction motion is currently set for June 20, 2018 in federal court in Sacramento, California. The scheduling of the hearing, which was set recently on March 29, 2018, was delayed in part by the filing of defendants’ motion to transfer the lawsuit from Sacramento to San Francisco, where a lawsuit by California against the federal government regarding new immigration-related conditions for federal funding is being heard. The court denied defendants’ motion to transfer on March 29, 2018.AB 450 Prohibitions And RequirementsAB 450 applies to all public and private employers in California.  It contains three types of prohibitions on employers.  Recent guidance from the California Labor Commissioner and California Attorney General has confirmed that the application of these prohibitions is a “factual, case-by-case determination” that depends on the totality of circumstances in each specific situation.(1)  AB 450 prohibits employers from providing “voluntary consent” to an “immigration enforcement agent” to enter any “nonpublic areas of a place of labor.”  None of the quoted terms has been defined in the statute.  The prohibition here is inapplicable if the agent provides a judicial warrant (a warrant signed by a judge upon a finding of probable cause).  It also does not prevent employers from taking the agent to a nonpublic area where employees are not present for the purpose of verifying whether the agent has a judicial warrant.According to the recent official guidance on AB 450, an example of providing “voluntary consent” to enter a “nonpublic” area could be freely asking or inviting an immigration enforcement agent to enter that area.  The law does not require physically blocking or physically interfering with the entry of an immigration enforcement agent in order to show that voluntary consent was not provided.  A “nonpublic” area is one that the general public is not normally free to enter or access, for example, an office where payroll or personnel records are kept, or an area that an employer designates (for instance, by posting signs or keeping doors closed) as restricted to employees or management of the business.  AB 450’s prohibition against voluntary consent does not apply to a public place of labor—an area that the general public is normally free to enter and access—such as the dining room of a restaurant or the sales floor of a store during business hours.  The definition of “immigration enforcement agent” continues to remain unclear, however.  No doubt it refers to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, but the California Attorney General’s office has identified an ICE agent only as an example of an “immigration enforcement agent.” Accordingly, it is possible that AB 450 extends to officials of other federal agencies with immigration-related functions, such as those in the U.S. Department of Labor, which may at times review I-9 forms, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.(2)  AB 450 prohibits employers from providing voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without a subpoena (which can be issued under the authority of a government agency or an attorney without the need for prior court approval) or judicial warrant.  This prohibition is inapplicable where an immigration agency has issued a “Notice of Inspection” of “I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms and other documents,” in which case employers would be entitled to at least three business days to produce the demanded I-9 forms.(As discussed below, an employer’s receipt of a Notice of Inspection triggers certain notice obligations for the employer.)  Of course, federal officials may instead use judicial warrants to get around the three day notice period.The penalty for violating the first or second prohibition under AB 450 is $2,000 to $5,000 for the first violation and $5,000 to $10,000 for each subsequent violation.  AB 450 provides both the California Labor Commissioner and the California Attorney General with the authority to enforce the first two prohibitions through civil action.  Any penalty collected is to be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund, a source of funding for the California Labor Commissioner’s Office.(3)  AB 450 prohibits employers from re-verifying the employment eligibility of a current employee unless specifically required by federal law.  The penalty for violating this prohibition is up to $10,000. This penalty is recoverable only by the California Labor Commissioner.AB 450 also imposes two notice requirements on employers regarding record inspections by federal immigration agencies.  (1)  AB 450 requires employers to provide each current employee (and the employee’s authorized representative, such as a union, if any) with a notice of any inspection of I-9 forms or other employment records by an immigration agency within 72 hours of receiving notice of the inspection.  (A simple visit by an immigration enforcement agent would not presumably by itself, absent receipt of a Notice of Inspection, trigger this notice obligation.)  Employers must post the notice in the language normally used to communicate employment information to employees.  The notice must contain the following information:  (a) the name of the immigration agency conducting the inspection; (b) the date that the employer received notice of the inspection; (c) the nature of the inspection to the extent known; and (d) a copy of the Notice of Inspection.  Upon reasonable request, employers must also separately provide a copy of the Notice of Inspection to any affected employee. The California Labor Commissioner’s office has made a <a href="https://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSE/LC_90.2_EE_Notice.pdf">notice template</a> available online.(2)  Within 72 hours of receiving written notice from the immigration agency of the results of the inspection of I-9 forms or other employment records, employers must also provide to each affected employee (and the employee’s authorized representative, such as a union, if any) with a notice regarding the results.  The term “affected employee” in this context means “an employee identified by the immigration agency inspection results to be an employee who may lack work authorization, or any employee whose work authorization documents have been identified by the immigration agency inspection to have deficiencies.”  The notice to the affected employee must be delivered by hand at the workplace if possible or, if hand delivery is not possible, by mail and email (if addresses are known).  The notice must contain the following information:  (a) a description of any and all deficiencies or other items identified in the written immigration inspection results notice related to the affected employee; (b) the time period for correcting any potential deficiencies identified by the immigration agency; (c) the time and date of any meeting with the employer to correct any identified deficiencies; and (d) notice that the employee has the right to representation during any meeting scheduled with the employer.  Employers that fail to provide the required notices are subject to penalties of $2,000 to $5,000 for a first violation, and $5,000 to $10,000 for each subsequent violation.  These penalties are recoverable only by the California Labor Commissioner.  The penalties need not be imposed, however, if an employer fails to provide required notice to an employee at the “express and specific direction or request of the federal government.” Practical Steps For EmployersThere are several steps employers can take to minimize the risk of unintentionally violating AB 450:(1)  Develop written guidelines to inform employees (especially frontline employees) about the appropriate person to contact or actions to take in case immigration enforcement agents appear at the workplace unannounced. (2)  Designate certain individuals in a workplace to handle communications with immigration enforcement agents and provide training on AB 450’s prohibitions and requirements to these individuals.  For example, designated individuals will need to know the difference between a judicial warrant, a subpoena, and a Notice of Inspection.  Only a judicial warrant is acceptable to allow agents to enter nonpublic places in a workplace, whereas either a judicial warrant or a subpoena is acceptable to allow agents to inspect employee records.  The prohibition regarding the inspection of I-9 forms and other documents is inapplicable where a Notice of Inspection has been issued, but the receipt of a Notice of Inspection triggers notice obligations.(3)  Because employers’ own designation of certain areas in a workplace as “public” or “nonpublic” would not be dispositive, employers should preemptively identify which areas of the workplace are not normally accessible to the general public.The impact and validity of AB 450 are expected to continue receiving press coverage as the lawsuit in Sacramento develops and ICE and other federal agencies step up immigration enforcement in California.  As AB 450 is still in effect, however, employers should continue proactively addressing potential compliance issues with AB 450 until they have heard otherwise from a court.

Employers Caught In Crosshairs Of Immigration Debate – Understanding And Complying With The California Immigrant Worker Protection Act

elcblog-march-_2018.jpg

Employers Caught In Crosshairs Of Immigration Debate – Understanding And Complying With The California Immigrant Worker Protection Act

elcblog-march- 2018

The increasingly polarized political climate has placed California employers in the middle of the dispute between the federal and California governments over im

Immigration

The Place: A car wash in Los AngelesThe Time: The 1970sThe Scene: A busy afternoon at the car wash. Immigration agents burst onto the property in search of undocumented workers. The cashier—wife of the manager— yells frantically into the public address mic, “¡La migra! Immigration!” Soapy cars stand abandoned on the chain as employees scatter. Some get away. Others are not so lucky. They are detained and promptly deported. Even the deported employees, however, return to work within a week, easily reentering the U.S. through its porous southern border.1[The curtain drops.]Read our <a target="_blank" href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt62efb6535d49855f/62730f9e5f7b601eaaebcd8e/170406-employment-law-commentary.pdf">newsletter</a>.

The Don(ald) Of A New Era: Are Workplace Immigration Raids On The Horizon?

elcbog-march-2017.jpg

The Don(ald) Of A New Era: Are Workplace Immigration Raids On The Horizon?

elcbog-march-2017

The Place: A car wash in Los Angeles
The Time: The 1970s
The Scene: A busy afternoon at the car wash. Immigration agents burst onto the property in search of un