California AB 450: Worksite Access, I-9 Notices, and Penalties

California AB 450, the Immigrant Worker Protection Act, limits how employers may cooperate with federal immigration enforcement at the workplace. Since January 1, 2018, the law has required both public and private employers to withhold voluntary access to nonpublic areas and employee records absent a judicial warrant or subpoena, to give employees two separate 72-hour notices around any I-9 inspection, and to avoid re-verifying work authorization outside narrow federal triggers.¹ Civil penalties run from $2,000 to $10,000 depending on the violation.

Worksite Access: Judicial Warrant or Nothing

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, including back offices, warehouse floors, kitchens, and production areas. Only a judicial warrant, meaning a document issued and signed by a federal or state judge, overrides that rule.²

There is one narrow verification exception. An employer may escort an agent into a nonpublic area to confirm whether the agent actually holds a judicial warrant, but only if no employees are present in that area and the employer does not consent to any search along the way.²

Employee Records: Subpoena or Judicial Warrant Required

Employers cannot voluntarily hand over employee records to an immigration agent unless the agent presents a subpoena or judicial warrant. That covers personnel files, payroll records, 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.³

I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms are treated differently. When an immigration agency serves a Notice of Inspection, the employer must produce the I-9 forms and any documents specifically listed in that notice without a separate subpoena or warrant.³

How to Tell a Judicial Warrant From an Administrative Warrant

The distinction is what everything else turns on. Only a judicial warrant triggers an employer’s obligation to allow access. Administrative warrants from immigration agencies look official but do not carry the same weight under California law.

A judicial warrant is issued by a court. The header references a U.S. District Court or a state Superior Court. It bears a judge’s signature and typically specifies the location to be searched and the scope of the search.
An administrative warrant is issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Forms I-200 (Warrant for Arrest of Alien) and I-205 (Warrant of Removal/Deportation) are the common examples. These are signed by an immigration official, not a judge, and they do not authorize entry into nonpublic areas or a search of the premises.

When an agent arrives with paperwork, whoever meets them should check the header and signature before deciding how to respond. If the document comes from DHS rather than a court, the employer is under no obligation to open nonpublic areas or produce records beyond I-9 forms covered by a Notice of Inspection.

The Two 72-Hour Notices After an I-9 Inspection

AB 450 creates two separate notice obligations, each with its own 72-hour deadline, both set out in Labor Code Section 90.2.

Initial Notice to All Current Employees

When an employer receives a Notice of Inspection, it must notify every current employee within 72 hours. The notice must also go to the employees’ authorized representative, if one exists, and be posted in the language the employer normally uses for employment-related communications.⁴

The posted notice should identify the agency conducting the inspection, the date the employer received the Notice of Inspection, a copy of the Notice itself, and a description of the inspection’s scope to the extent known. Multilingual workforces need a posting in each language the employer regularly uses 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 any 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.⁴

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 to affected employees should describe the specific deficiencies found, the timeframe to correct them, when and where any meeting with the employer will take place, and the employee’s right to have a representative present at that meeting.

Limits on Re-Verifying Work Eligibility

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. Running a random internal I-9 audit, demanding new documents from a long-tenured employee, or re-checking eligibility without a legitimate federal trigger all violate the rule.⁵

Federal law does require re-verification in specific situations, and California law respects those. Employers may lawfully re-verify when a temporary work authorization document is about to expire, and they may send a reminder at least 90 days before the expiration date. Employers may also correct errors or omissions in incomplete I-9 forms and may act on specific information from DHS indicating that a particular employee is no longer authorized to work.⁵ None of these exceptions permits blanket re-verification across a workforce. The trigger must be employee-specific and tied to a recognized federal requirement.

Protections Against Unfair Immigration-Related Practices

Separately, Labor Code Section 1019.1 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.⁶ An employee who believes an employer violated these rules can file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, with penalties reaching up to $10,000 per violation.

Penalty Amounts by Violation

The penalty structure 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 counts as one violation, regardless of how many employees, agents, or locations were involved that day.²
Turning over employee records without a subpoena or judicial warrant: the same $2,000 to $5,000 first-violation range and $5,000 to $10,000 for subsequent violations.⁷
Failing to provide 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.⁴
Unauthorized re-verification of work eligibility: up to $10,000 per violation, with no reduced range for first offenses.⁵
Unfair immigration-related practices under Section 1019.1: up to $10,000 per violation.⁶

One protection for employers acting in good faith: if a court finds that an immigration agent entered a nonpublic area without the employer’s consent, the penalty for the access violation does not apply.²

Who Can Enforce AB 450

Only the California Labor Commissioner and the California Attorney General may enforce AB 450’s worksite access, records, and notice provisions. That authority is exclusive under the statute, meaning individual employees cannot bring private lawsuits or representative actions under the Private Attorneys General Act for these specific violations.²

The unfair-practices provision under Section 1019.1 works differently. An affected employee or applicant can file a complaint directly with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and the Labor Commissioner pursues the penalty on behalf of the worker.⁶ So while the access and notice rules are enforced top-down, the anti-retaliation protections give individual workers a way to trigger enforcement themselves.

1
California Department of Justice. Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450) FAQ
2
California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 7285.1
3
California Legislative Information. California Code Government Code GOV 7285.2
4
California Legislative Information. California Code Labor Code LAB 90.2
5
California Legislative Information. California Code LAB 1019.2
6
California Legislative Information. California Code LAB 1019.1
7
California Department of Justice. Immigrant Worker Protection Act (Assembly Bill 450) Frequently Asked Questions