California Assembly Bill 450, the Immigrant Worker Protection Act, has been in effect since January 1, 2018, and it sets specific rules for how employers in the state must respond when federal immigration enforcement agents arrive at the workplace or request records. The law applies to both public and private employers, restricts voluntary cooperation with immigration enforcement, requires employee notices around I-9 inspections, limits when work authorization can be re-verified, and backs those duties with civil penalties of $2,000 to $10,000 per violation.1California Department of Justice. Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450) FAQ
When an Immigration Agent Arrives at the Workplace
An employer cannot voluntarily let an immigration enforcement agent into any nonpublic area of the workplace. Nonpublic means anything not open to the general public: back offices, warehouse floors, kitchens, production areas. The only thing that overrides this rule is a judicial warrant.2California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 7285.1
There is one narrow exception. An employer may escort an agent to a nonpublic area to confirm the agent actually has a judicial warrant, but only if no employees are present in that area and the employer does not consent to any search in the process.2California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 7285.1
Judicial Warrant Versus Administrative Warrant
This distinction decides the whole encounter. A judicial warrant is issued by a court; the header will reference a U.S. District Court or a state Superior Court, and it bears a judge’s signature. It typically names the location to be searched and the scope of the search.
An administrative warrant is issued by the Department of Homeland Security, not a court. Forms I-200 (Warrant for Arrest of Alien) and I-205 (Warrant of Removal/Deportation) are the common ones. These are signed by an immigration official, not a judge. They do not authorize entry into nonpublic areas or a search of the premises.
Check the header and signature before deciding how to respond. If the document comes from DHS rather than a court, you are under no obligation to open nonpublic areas or to produce records beyond what a Notice of Inspection specifies.
When an Agent Asks for Employee Records
Separate from physical access, employers cannot voluntarily hand over employee records to an immigration agent unless the agent presents a subpoena or judicial warrant. This covers personnel files, payroll, and other employment documentation. An employer also has the right to challenge the validity of a subpoena or warrant in federal court rather than simply complying.3California Legislative Information. California Code Government Code GOV 7285.2
There is one important carve-out. I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms and any documents specifically listed in a federal Notice of Inspection are not protected by the subpoena-or-warrant rule. When an immigration agency serves a Notice of Inspection, you must produce the I-9 forms and related documents identified in that notice without a separate subpoena or warrant.3California Legislative Information. California Code Government Code GOV 7285.2
The Two 72-Hour Notices Around an I-9 Inspection
Labor Code Section 90.2 creates two separate notice obligations, each with its own 72-hour deadline. This is where employers most often fall short of compliance.
Initial Notice to All Current Employees
Within 72 hours of receiving a Notice of Inspection from an immigration agency, the employer must notify every current employee. The notice also goes to the employees’ authorized representative, if one exists, and must be posted in the language the employer normally uses for employment-related communications.4California Legislative Information. California Code Labor Code LAB 90.2
The posting should identify the agency conducting the inspection, state the date the employer received the Notice of Inspection, include a copy of the Notice itself, and describe the scope of the inspection to the extent known. If your workforce speaks multiple languages, post in each language you regularly use for employment communications.
Follow-Up Notice to Affected Employees
Once the inspection concludes and the employer receives written results, a second 72-hour clock starts. Within that window, the employer must give each affected employee and their authorized representative a copy of the written results. An affected employee is one the agency has identified as potentially lacking work authorization or as having document deficiencies.4California Legislative Information. California Code Labor Code LAB 90.2
Along with the results, the employer must provide a written explanation of the obligations arising from those findings for both the employer and the employee. The notice should describe the specific deficiencies, the timeframe to correct them, the date and location of any meeting with the employer, and the employee’s right to have a representative present at that meeting.
Limits on Re-Verifying Work Authorization
Outside the inspection context, employers cannot re-verify a current employee’s work authorization at a time or in a manner not required by federal law. A random internal I-9 audit, a demand for new documents from a long-tenured worker, or a re-check without a legitimate federal trigger all violate this rule.5California Legislative Information. California Code LAB 1019.2
Federal law does require re-verification in specific situations, and California law respects those. Employers may re-verify when a temporary work authorization document is about to expire, and may send a reminder at least 90 days before the expiration date. Employers may also correct errors or omissions on incomplete I-9 forms and may act on specific information from DHS indicating that a particular employee is no longer authorized to work.5California Legislative Information. California Code LAB 1019.2
None of these exceptions permits blanket re-verification across a workforce. The trigger must be employee-specific and tied to a recognized federal requirement.
Anti-Retaliation and Unfair Immigration-Related Practices
Labor Code Section 1019.1 separately prohibits using the verification process as a tool of retaliation or intimidation. An employer cannot request more or different documents than federal law requires, refuse to accept documents that reasonably appear genuine, or reject valid work authorization based on the specific immigration status attached to it.6California Legislative Information. California Code LAB 1019.1
An employee who believes an employer violated these rules can file a complaint directly with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. Penalties reach up to $10,000 per violation.6California Legislative Information. California Code LAB 1019.1
Penalties for Violations
The penalty depends on which provision was violated and whether it is a first or repeat offense.
- Allowing access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant: $2,000 to $5,000 for a first violation; $5,000 to $10,000 for each subsequent violation. Each separate incident is one violation, regardless of how many employees, agents, or locations were involved.2California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 7285.1
- Turning over employee records without a subpoena or judicial warrant: $2,000 to $5,000 for a first violation; $5,000 to $10,000 for each subsequent violation.7California Department of Justice. Immigrant Worker Protection Act (Assembly Bill 450) Frequently Asked Questions
- Failing to provide the required employee notices: $2,000 to $5,000 for a first violation; $5,000 to $10,000 for each subsequent violation. No penalty applies if the employer withheld notice at the express direction of the federal government.4California Legislative Information. California Code Labor Code LAB 90.2
- Unauthorized re-verification of work eligibility: up to $10,000 per violation, with no reduced range for first offenses.5California Legislative Information. California Code LAB 1019.2
- Unfair immigration-related practices under Section 1019.1: up to $10,000 per violation.6California Legislative Information. California Code LAB 1019.1
Who Enforces AB 450
Only the California Labor Commissioner and the California Attorney General can enforce the worksite access, records, and notice provisions. This exclusive authority is written into the statute, so individual employees cannot bring private lawsuits or Private Attorneys General Act claims for those specific violations.2California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 7285.1
The unfair-practices provision under Labor Code Section 1019.1 works differently. There, an affected employee or applicant can file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and the Labor Commissioner pursues the penalty on behalf of the worker.6California Legislative Information. California Code LAB 1019.1 The worksite and notice provisions are enforced top-down; the anti-retaliation protections give workers a direct path to trigger enforcement themselves.