WA bill intends to protect immigrants from coercion in the workplace
The Washington state Capitol building, Feb. 19, 2024. (Bill Lucia/Washington State Standard)
When an immigrant faces threats or exploitation by their employer, they often have limited recourse. Law students from Seattle University want to change that, pushing for a state bill to strengthen protections for people facing workplace coercion based on their immigration status.
'In the last several years, we have been advocating for legislative changes that would help our clients and this is one of those,' said Elizabeth Ford, a law professor who teaches the workers' rights clinic at Seattle University.
Sen. Bob Hasegawa, D-Seattle, took up this legislation and introduced Senate Bill 5104, to give workers better tools to avoid workplace threats based on their immigration status and to prevent employers from exploiting the immigration status of employees.
'It's a shame that we have to try and find every abusive situation and draft a separate bill to deal with it,' Hasegawa said.
An example of workplace coercion would be if an employer notes someone's immigration status and then asks them to work unpaid overtime.
The bill would require the state's Department of Labor and Industries to investigate complaints of coercion made against employers and would give the agency the authority to impose civil penalties when violations occur.
When a worker files a complaint, the department will notify the employer. However, language in the bill was added to make personal information from the worker confidential to anyone other than the department and employee.
'Employers have so much more power than workers, it's the unfortunate truth,' said Yasmene Hammoud, a law student at Seattle University. 'But when you add immigration status to the mix, the power dynamic and the leverage that the employer gains is incredibly disproportionate.'
Similar legislation passed in New Jersey last year with bipartisan support.
Concerns came up during committee hearings that the Washington bill may be redundant with existing law.
Under current law, citizens and non-citizens are both entitled to the same standards, rights, and protections in the workplace. There are laws on the books that protect any worker, regardless of their immigration status, from retaliation.
Angelo Tadrous, a law student at Seattle University, said the bill is still necessary and noted that workplace coercion differs from retaliation because it happens before an employee raises an issue. Retaliation happens after the employee does so.
If a worker raises an issue to their employer and the employer responds by withholding wages or rest breaks, that's retaliation. If this occurs, a worker can file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Industries.
Most complaints regarding coercion don't get filed until the employee leaves their workplace.
'One of the dynamics of coercion is this, that it silences people. And so that there's a major risk of coming forward, that's why coercion works,' Ford said.
The bill was heard on the Senate floor Wednesday and passed on a 40-9 vote. It now awaits action in the House.
'It's incredibly important to safeguard [immigrant] rights and well-being to really allow the labor law to do what it was designed to do, and that's to protect workers across the board, regardless of their immigration status,' Hammoud said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Seattle's democracy vouchers are working. Here's the proof
A voter puts a ballot in the drop box at the Ballard branch of the Seattle Public Library in King County in August 2024. This voting location is one of the most popular in the county. (Laurel Demkovich/Washington State Standard) In American politics, money talks — and usually wins. Candidates fundraise to hire staff, print literature, and reach voters. More often than not, the candidate who raises the most money comes out on top. While money speaks volumes in elections, most campaign cash comes from a tiny sliver of Americans. In 2024, just 1% of Americans contributed at least $200 to federal candidates. Those donations accounted for a staggering 80% of all money in federal races. These donors are not representative of the American electorate. They're overwhelmingly white, wealthy, and predominantly male. Money is a problem in local elections, too. When we started researching local elections in Seattle, we found that a tiny sliver of the electorate was funding political campaigns. In fact, in 2013, only 1.49% of Seattle residents donated to a local campaign. Those donors were concentrated in the city's wealthiest neighborhoods. Seattle's Democracy Voucher Program changed that. By giving every voter publicly funded democracy vouchers to support candidates of their choice, the program has brought tens of thousands more people into the political process. Today, the donors in local elections look much more like the voters of Seattle. As the program has expanded, participation has surged. The share of registered voters contributing to campaigns nearly doubled — from about 5% in 2017, when voters first began using their vouchers to support city council candidates, to nearly 10% in 2021, when voters could also, for the first time, use their vouchers to support mayoral candidates. Seattle now boasts one of the highest local contributor rates in the country. These new donors also reflect the city's diversity. Democracy voucher users are far more representative — by race, income, and age — than traditional cash donors. To take just one example: in 2013, less than 1% of people of color in Seattle donated to city campaigns. By 2021, with voucher users in the mix, that figure had jumped to 8%. As democracy vouchers draw more people into the system of campaign finance, the program is narrowing the racial and economic disparities that have long distorted our elections and their outcomes. Seattle's success hasn't gone unnoticed. In 2022, Oakland voters passed a 'Democracy Dollars' measure modeled on Seattle's. And reformers in cities like Los Angeles and San Diego are watching closely as they explore public financing programs of their own. As Seattle heads into its fifth election cycle with democracy vouchers, and voters consider renewing the program's tax levy, the evidence is clear. The program has moved Seattle toward a fairer, more inclusive democracy. We hope Seattle chooses to keep leading the way.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Trump's birthright citizenship order lands in Seattle appeals court
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, center, speaks to reporters alongside Solicitor General Noah Purcell, left, and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project Legal Director Matt Adams, right, outside a Seattle courthouse where federal appeals court judges heard arguments over President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship on Wednesday, June 4, 2025. (Photo by Jake Goldstein-Street/Washington State Standard) SEATTLE — Federal appeals court judges in Seattle on Wednesday questioned a Trump administration lawyer and Washington's solicitor general over the president's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The three-judge panel in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared more open to the Trump administration's arguments than a federal judge in Seattle who in January called the order 'blatantly unconstitutional.' Perhaps the most pointed question came after a lengthy back-and-forth over what the writers of the 14th Amendment meant when they enshrined birthright citizenship into the U.S. Constitution. Hawkins asked Department of Justice attorney Eric McArthur, who clerked for conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, what the late Justice Antonin Scalia would think of his arguments. Scalia, an ardent originalist, anchored the Supreme Court's conservative wing alongside Thomas. 'He was widely critical of looking at congressional history and statements of senators opposing or supporting a particular thing, and famously said 'just the words,'' said Hawkins, a Clinton appointee. McArthur said he thought Scalia would have been 'very open to looking at all of the historic evidence.' After McCarthur's arguments, Hawkins told the Justice Department attorney he did a 'terrific job.' Trump's executive action, signed on the first day of his second term, aims to end birthright citizenship for babies born to a mother and father who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Since the aftermath of the Civil War, the country has automatically given citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil, no matter their immigration status. Wednesday was the first time the merits of Trump's order have come before a federal appeals court. The arguments from Washington's solicitor general, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and McArthur come a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court took up Washington's case on birthright citizenship and others. The justices focused on whether preliminary injunctions, like the one from Judge John Coughenor in Seattle at the center of Wednesday's hearing, should affect only the parties involved in a particular case or can be applied nationwide. The Trump administration contends such orders are judicial overreach. The Supreme Court's ruling-to-come could have implications far beyond the birthright citizenship case, potentially staunching the flow of temporary nationwide blocks that state attorneys general are relying on to stop what they see as the president's unlawful actions. In their May 15 hearing, the justices appeared wary of allowing different rules by state. On Wednesday, state Solicitor General Noah Purcell called Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship 'unconstitutional and unAmerican.' 'President Trump seeks to turn citizenship into a political football, denying that precious right to hundreds of thousands of babies born in this country simply because their parents are here to work, to study or to escape persecution or violence,' said Purcell, who argued successfully against the president's travel ban in court in 2017. As is customary, the 9th Circuit judges didn't rule from the bench Wednesday. They'll issue a written ruling in the coming weeks or months. Both sides told the judges it may be prudent to first wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the nationwide injunction question. Former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, appointed two of the three judges who oversaw Wednesday's hearing. The other is a Trump appointee from the president's first term. Several other cases are currently awaiting similar appellate hearings after lower courts awarded preliminary injunctions. The Supreme Court will likely have the final say on the merits of Trump's order. Speaking to reporters after the Wednesday morning hearing, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said 'the judges had a lot of pointed and difficult questions for both sides to grapple with.' Still, he said he is 'really confident moving forward that this court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will rule in the states' favors.' The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution codified birthright citizenship in 1868. The amendment begins: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' Trump's order, initially set to take effect Feb. 19, focused on the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' phrase. 'The Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States,' Trump's executive order reads. 'The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' Legal precedent, including an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, has long upheld birthright citizenship. That case dealt with a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents named Wong King Ark. The justices ruled he was a U.S. citizen. The two sides interpret this case differently. Much of Wednesday's arguments centered the Wong Kim Ark decision. McArthur noted the Supreme Court ruled 'every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.' He focuses on the word 'domiciled,' arguing those here temporarily or without legal status don't fall under that umbrella. Matt Adams, legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, countered by reading further from the Supreme Court decision. 'His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory,' the justices continued in their Wong Kim Ark ruling, arguing that he is 'as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.' Washington's case against Trump's birthright citizenship order, filed alongside Oregon, Arizona and Illinois, led to the second Trump administration's first judicial rebuke. The Reagan-appointed judge, Coughenour, later agreed to indefinitely block Trump's order while the case played out in court. Trump's Department of Justice appealed, leading to Wednesday's hearing. Two pregnant noncitizen women joined the states' litigation, fearful their children could be born stateless. One has since given birth to a baby born a U.S. citizen because of court action, said Matt Adams, legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. In 2022, about 153,000 babies across the country were born to two parents without legal immigration status, including 4,000 in Washington, according to the plaintiffs. The states have said they stand to lose federal funding through programs like Medicaid that otherwise could help these children if they were citizens. Purcell told the judges that implementing the Trump administration's vision would be difficult, leaving hospitals to ask about immigration status and how long parents plan to remain in the United States. 'Doesn't that just show the injunction is premature?' asked Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee. 'We don't know how unworkable it is because they were not given a chance to implement it.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Yahoo
Washington's attorney general sees no signs of legal battles with Trump letting up
Attorney General Nick Brown, center, speaks to reporters alongside California Attorney General Rob Bonta, right, and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, left, before an event at Town Hall Seattle on Monday, June 2, 2025. (Photo by Jake Goldstein-Street/Washington State Standard) SEATTLE — Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown warned in mid-April that the Trump administration's actions put the country near the 'precipice of a constitutional crisis.' His comments alongside fellow state attorneys general in Colorado came shortly after the White House defied court orders to return a Maryland man the federal government had wrongfully sent to El Salvador under the president's immigration crackdown. Six weeks later, Brown shies away from using that term, but says President Donald Trump's disregard for some court rulings, especially in immigration cases, has made the circumstances around how he is wielding executive power 'much more dangerous.' 'Whether or not we're in a constitutional crisis, you know, that's somewhat of an academic debate,' the Democratic attorney general told reporters before a town hall Monday alongside his counterparts from Oregon and California. 'In my mind, we are in a crisis. Call it what you want.' It's been a whirlwind few months for Brown, who took office in January. Later that month, the day after Trump took office, Brown sued over the president's executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship. Since then, he's filed 19 more lawsuits, over threats to gender-affirming care, election systems and cuts to a host of federal agencies and funding opportunities. Some of that litigation is playing out in federal courtrooms in Seattle. Those cases have led to court orders blocking Trump's actions, but are not fully settled. Oregon and California are plaintiffs in even more lawsuits than Washington. Brown guaranteed more litigation to come. At Monday's event in Seattle, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield recalled a meeting he had with his governor, Tina Kotek, in January. She didn't want him to be the next Bob Ferguson, who during Trump's first term served as Washington attorney general and brought dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration. This raised Ferguson's profile before he was elected governor last year. 'During the first Trump presidency, I kept looking on the news all the time, and I kept seeing Bob Ferguson every single day,' Kotek told Rayfield. 'You're not going to do that to me, are you?' Rayfield told the crowd, 'I stand here in Washington to tell you I am the Oregon version of Bob Ferguson.' At the town hall, the trio of western states' top legal officials heard concerns from locals about cut public health funding, increasingly brazen immigration enforcement, disinvestment in climate policy, and congressional attacks on reproductive health care. California Attorney General Rob Bonta acknowledged that it's a heavy time for people opposed to Trump. 'We shouldn't feel hopeless, because we're not helpless,' he added. 'We have power.' Last month, Brown was in Washington, D.C., when the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over challenges to Trump's order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship. The arguments focused on the legal issue of lower court orders blocking actions nationwide, versus only in the places from which plaintiffs are suing. The justices haven't yet ruled on the matter. Meanwhile, Brown's office will be in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle on Wednesday, arguing to maintain such a preliminary injunction indefinitely stopping the federal government from implementing the birthright citizenship order. The attorney general has also been at the forefront of defending so-called 'sanctuary' policies that states and cities have enacted to stop local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. Brown said his lawsuit against an eastern Washington county that aided immigration agents was 'the most difficult case that I have had to bring.' Last week, the Trump administration included Washington, about three dozen of the state's counties and a handful of cities on a nationwide list of sanctuary jurisdictions that it feels hinder the work of immigration enforcement. Listed on the inventory was the nonexistent 'Swinomish County.' The president has threatened to withhold federal funding from these state and local governments. Over the weekend, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security took down the list's webpage amid pushback from police officials. In a call Monday, Brown and other attorneys general laughed over the administration's sloppiness. 'We will survive Donald Trump,' Brown said. Still, he felt the need to knock on wood after saying Trump wouldn't be on the ballot in 2028. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
