Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement Worksplace topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee Hears Deeply Split Testimony on I-9 Audit Notification and Worker-Protection Substitute (HB 2105)
Summary
Witnesses sharply divided as the committee reviewed a proposed substitute to HB 2105 requiring employers to notify employees of federal I-9 inspections, to share inspection results, and to restrict voluntary disclosure of certain records without subpoena; supporters called it due-process and anti-retaliation protection, opponents warned of operational burdens and high penalties for small businesses.
The Labor and Workplace Standards Committee took lengthy testimony Jan. 16 on a proposed substitute for House Bill 2105, the Immigrant Worker Protection Act, which would require employers to notify workers and their representatives within 72 hours of receiving a federal I-9 notice of inspection, to distribute post-inspection results to affected employees and to restrict voluntary disclosure of most worker records to federal agencies absent a subpoena or judicial warrant.
Sponsor Rep. Lillian Ortiz Self framed the bill as clarifying employers' roles during immigration enforcement, reducing trauma for immigrant workers and giving employees a chance to correct paperwork errors. "Our immigrant population will benefit from this," she said on the record, and she urged support.
Proponents — including the Washington State Catholic Conference, League of Women Voters, Columbia Legal Services and community leaders — said notice provides due process, reduces fear and helps workers preserve rights regarding wages and safety.
Opponents, especially small-business groups and NFIB, argued the hybrid federal-state requirements could trap small employers between conflicting obligations, point to onerous translation and distribution tasks, and impose civil penalties that could be ruinous for small firms. Small-business owners warned that 72-hour windows for outreach and the possibility of private civil actions would expose tiny employers to litigation and fines that could threaten viability.
The Attorney General's office representative (Adam Eitman) said similar laws in Illinois and California have been upheld in federal court, argued the substitute regulates employer-employee communications rather than federal enforcement actions and promised outreach, templates and translations to ease implementation. Staff noted the substitute contains a contingent effective date (later of 07/01/2026 or when the AG certifies template posters and notices are available) and specified penalty ranges by employer size.
Committee members raised questions about federal preemption and implementation timelines. Several witnesses urged continued negotiations on penalties and on limiting private plaintiffs' exposure. The committee adjourned for the day without voting on HB 2105; members signaled further conversations with stakeholders would continue.
