HB 2105, titled the Immigrant Worker Protection Act, creates a new chapter in Washington law aimed at protecting workers during federal immigration-related workplace inspections, including Form I-9 audits and related record reviews. The bill declares legislative findings that immigrant workers are important to the state economy and that workplace raids can disrupt families and communities without effectively improving workplace standards or deterring unlawful conduct by employers.
The bill requires employers to give workers notice when they receive notice of a federal inspection and again when they receive the results, including information about the inspecting agency, the date of notice, the records sought, and contact information for immigrant and refugee rights resources. The Attorney General must publish a model notice, a workplace poster, and guidance for employers, and must conduct outreach. Employers must post the required notice, provide written notice to affected workers within five business days, and share inspection-result information in the language most regularly used to communicate with the worker. The bill also prohibits employers from retaliating against workers for exercising rights under the chapter and authorizes the Attorney General to investigate, conciliate, and bring enforcement actions, while also creating a private right of action for workers and others injured by violations.
HB 2105 also limits employer conduct during immigration-related compliance actions. It states that employers are not required to conduct Form I-9 self-audits, may not impose verification requirements beyond federal law, and may not interfere with workers’ rights under the chapter. The bill includes protections related to access to nonpublic areas and worker records, and it preserves compliance with federal law, E-Verify, collective bargaining agreements, and other state and federal requirements. It further provides that if specific funding is not included in the omnibus appropriations act by a stated deadline, the act is null and void.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it adds a new statutory framework governing employer notice, worker protections, anti-retaliation rules, and state enforcement authority in the context of federal immigration inspections. It affects employers across Washington, especially those subject to I-9 audits or other federal employment eligibility investigations, and it creates new obligations to communicate with workers, preserve confidentiality, and document compliance. It also gives the Attorney General a central role in implementation and enforcement, including civil penalties and damages.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is supportive but divided. The bill advanced through both chambers, including passage in the House and Senate, but with notable opposition at each major stage, suggesting substantial concern even among lawmakers who ultimately supported it. The main points of contention appear to be the scope of employer obligations, the state’s role in immigration-related workplace enforcement, potential burdens on businesses, and the balance between worker protections and federal immigration compliance. Supporters emphasized protecting immigrant workers, family stability, and clear guidance for employers, while opponents likely focused on enforcement complexity and the broader policy implications of the state’s intervention in federal immigration matters.
The bill creates a new chapter in Title 49 RCW establishing employer notice, anti-retaliation, confidentiality, and enforcement requirements tied to federal immigration workplace inspections. It imposes new duties on employers to notify workers of I-9 audits and inspection results, authorizes Attorney General enforcement and private lawsuits, and provides statutory damages and other remedies for violations, while preserving federal-law compliance and E-Verify use.
The bill appears to have had generally favorable support among legislative majorities, but with meaningful opposition at each stage of consideration. The recorded votes show it passed both chambers, though not overwhelmingly, indicating that lawmakers were divided over the policy. Support centered on protecting immigrant workers and providing employer guidance, while opposition likely reflected concerns about regulatory burden and the state’s role in immigration enforcement.
The main contention is between supporters who view the bill as necessary worker protection and opponents who may see it as an added compliance burden for employers and a state intrusion into federal immigration enforcement. Specific points of debate include mandatory worker notices, Attorney General oversight, private rights of action, anti-retaliation provisions, and whether employers should be required to provide language-accessible communications and detailed inspection information. Business interests and critics of expanded workplace regulation are likely to object to the operational and legal exposure created by the bill, while labor and immigrant-rights advocates support the protections.