SSB 5104
SignedSenate
Immigration status coercion
Protecting employees from coercion in the workplace based on immigration status.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill makes it illegal for employers to threaten workers about their or their family’s immigration status in order to stop them from asserting their legal rights—like filing wage claims or reporting labor violations. It creates civil penalties for such coercion and gives workers a way to report it to the state.
- Adds a new definition of 'coercion' in state labor law: a threat to compel or stop someone from doing something they have a legal right to do, specifically including threats about immigration status.
- Makes it illegal for employers to coerce workers based on immigration status to prevent them from asserting rights under wage or labor laws (e.g., filing wage claims, reporting unsafe conditions).
- Allows workers to file a complaint with the Department of Labor & Industries within 180 days of the coercion.
- Requires the Department to investigate complaints and impose civil penalties: up to $1,000 for a first violation, $5,000 for a second, and $10,000 for subsequent violations—each act of coercion against each worker counts as a separate violation.
- Requires civil penalties to be paid into the Supplemental Pension Fund, and adjusts penalty amounts for inflation every 3 years starting July 1, 2028, using the Seattle-area consumer price index.
Who is affected
- Workers (especially low-wage and immigrant workers) — Workers who may be threatened or pressured by their employer due to their or their family member's immigration status, especially when they try to assert their rights under wage or labor laws.
- Employers — Employers who use threats related to immigration status to prevent workers from asserting their legal rights—these employers could face civil penalties.
- Department of Labor & Industries staff — State workers who investigate and enforce labor laws, particularly staff at the Department of Labor & Industries who will handle complaints and investigations.
- Workers in vulnerable or historically exploited sectors — Workers in agriculture, domestic work, and other sectors where immigration-based coercion has historically been more common.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (5)
Defines 'coercion' and 'threat' broadly to include implicit or explicit immigration-status threats, ensuring robust legal coverage for diverse forms of employer pressure.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 1(8), (9)Counts each coercive act against each worker as a separate violation, enabling meaningful penalties even for single-incident coercion and deterring repeat behavior.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2(4)Uses Seattle-area CPI for inflation adjustments, reflecting local cost-of-living trends—though this may overstate inflation for workers in lower-cost regions, creating minor geographic inequity.
FinancialRef: Sec. 2(6)(b)Deposits penalties into the Supplemental Pension Fund, supporting long-term retirement security—though the fiscal impact on the fund is likely negligible given small penalty volumes.
FinancialRef: Sec. 2(5)Aligns immigration-coercion prohibitions with existing wage and labor standards enforcement, reducing regulatory fragmentation and strengthening the state’s ability to combat labor violations holistically.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
Prohibits employers from threatening workers’ immigration status to deter them from asserting legal rights (e.g., filing wage claims), thereby strengthening workplace rights enforcement and reducing coercion—a practice disproportionately used against vulnerable workers.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), (2), (3), (4)Imposes civil penalties up to $10,000 per coercive act per worker, with penalties deposited into the Supplemental Pension Fund—providing a financial deterrent to employer coercion and generating revenue for pension funding, though the fund’s broader solvency impact is minimal.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3), (5)Empowers workers—especially low-wage and immigrant workers—to report labor violations without fear of immigration-based retaliation, reducing workplace exploitation and improving overall public safety by encouraging compliance with health and safety standards.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2), (3)Requires inflation-adjusted penalties starting in 2028 using the Seattle-area CPI, ensuring penalties retain deterrent value over time and preventing erosion of enforcement power—benefiting workers in high-cost regions like King County.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(6)(a)Clarifies and strengthens legal protections against immigration-based coercion, reducing the risk of wage theft and unsafe conditions in vulnerable sectors—though compliance costs for employers (especially small ones) may increase slightly.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-wage and immigrant workers—especially in agriculture, domestic work, and construction—gain stronger legal recourse against immigration-based threats, reducing fear and improving ability to report wage theft or unsafe conditions. This group is most directly and positively impacted.
Employers who currently use or tolerate immigration-based coercion face new liability exposure and potential penalties, but most compliant employers face minimal impact. The policy targets abusive practices, not legitimate business operations.
DOL&I staff gain new enforcement authority and statutory clarity, but the bill does not include funding for additional investigators or legal staff, potentially straining existing resources.
Workers in historically exploited sectors (e.g., farmworkers, domestic workers) benefit disproportionately, as immigration-based coercion has been a documented tool of suppression in these fields for decades.