Bill Text

Bill Information

PDF |Add To My Favorites |Track Bill | print page

AB-263 Employment: retaliation: immigration-related practices.(2013-2014)

SHARE THIS:share this bill in Facebookshare this bill in Twitter
AB263:v92#DOCUMENT

Assembly Bill No. 263
CHAPTER 732

An act to amend Sections 98.6, 98.7, 1102.5, and 1103 of, to add Section 1024.6 to, and to add Chapter 3.1 (commencing with Section 1019) to Part 3 of Division 2 of, the Labor Code, relating to employment.

[ Approved by Governor  October 11, 2013. Filed with Secretary of State  October 11, 2013. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 263, Roger Hernández. Employment: retaliation: immigration-related practices.
Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in prescribed protected conduct relating to the enforcement of the employee’s or applicant’s rights. Existing law provides that an employee who made a bona fide complaint, and was consequently discharged or otherwise suffered an adverse action, is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to willfully refuse to reinstate or otherwise restore an employee who is determined by a specified procedure to be eligible for reinstatement.
This bill would also prohibit an employer from retaliating or taking adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in protected conduct. The bill would expand the protected conduct to include a written or oral complaint by an employee that he or she is owed unpaid wages. The bill would provide that an employee who was retaliated against or otherwise was subjected to an adverse action is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages. The bill would subject a person who violates these provisions to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. The bill would also provide that it is not necessary to exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in the enforcement of specified provisions. Because the willful refusal by an employer to reinstate or reimburse an employee who suffered a retaliatory action under these provisions would be a misdemeanor, the bill would expand the scope of a crime and impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law declares that an individual who has applied for employment, or who is or has been employed in this state, is entitled to the protections, rights, and remedies available under state law, regardless of his or her immigration status. Existing law declares that an inquiry into a person’s immigration status for purposes of enforcing state labor and employment laws shall not be permitted, unless a showing is made, by clear and convincing evidence, that the inquiry is necessary in order to comply with federal immigration law.
This bill would make it unlawful for an employer or any other person to engage in, or direct another person to engage in, an unfair immigration-related practice, as defined, against a person for the purpose of, or with the intent of, retaliating against any person for exercising a right protected under state labor and employment laws or under a local ordinance applicable to employees, as specified. The bill would also create a rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken within 90 days of the exercising of a protected right is committed for the purpose of, or with the intent of, retaliation.
The bill would authorize a civil action by an employee or other person who is the subject of an unfair immigration-related practice. The bill would authorize a court to order the appropriate government agencies to suspend certain business licenses held by the violating party for prescribed periods based on the number of violations. The bill would require the court to consider prescribed circumstances in determining whether a suspension of all licenses is appropriate.
Existing law prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Existing law further prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for that disclosure. Under existing law, a violation of these provisions by the employer is a misdemeanor. Existing law additionally subjects an employer that is a corporation or a limited liability company to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each violation of these provisions.
This bill would additionally prohibit any person acting on behalf of the employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, as provided, and from retaliating against an employee for such a disclosure. The bill would also expand the prohibited actions to include preventing an employee from, or retaliating against an employee for, providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry. The bill would provide that any person or entity that violates these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor, and would further subject an entity that violates these provisions that is a corporation or limited liability company to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each violation of these provisions. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law prohibits an employer or prospective employer, with the exception of certain financial institutions, from obtaining a consumer credit report, as defined, for employment purposes unless it is for a specified position, including, among others, a position in the state Department of Justice, a managerial position, as defined, or a position that involves regular access to $10,000 or more of cash, as specified.
This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating, retaliating, or taking any adverse action against an employee because the employee updates or attempts to update his or her personal information, unless the changes are directly related to the skill set, qualifications, or knowledge required for the job.
This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code proposed by SB 496 that would become operative if this bill and SB 496 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: YES  

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:


SECTION 1.

 The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Wage theft is a serious and widespread problem that causes severe hardship to low-wage workers, their families, and their communities.
(b) When a worker is denied wages or forced to work “off the clock,” there is an immediate and irreparable harm to the worker and his or her family.
(c) Low-wage, often immigrant, workers are the most frequent victims of wage theft and are also exposed to the greatest hazards at work.
(d) Immigrant workers have the greatest number of work-related injuries and fatalities.
(e) Far too often, when workers come forward to expose unfair, unsafe, or illegal conditions, they face retaliation from the employer.
(f) Where there are immigrant workers involved, employer retaliation often involves threats to contact law enforcement agencies, including immigration enforcement agencies, if a worker engages in protected conduct.
(g) No employee should have to fear adverse action, whether it involves threats to cut hours, move a worker to night shift, or contact law enforcement agencies, simply for engaging in rights the State of California has deemed so important that they are protected by law.
(h) It is in the public policy interest of the State of California that workers be able to report concerns to their employers without fear of retaliation or discrimination.
(i) It is in the public policy interest of the State of California for workers to be willing to come forward to expose hazardous, unsafe, and unfair conditions at their worksites so that local, state, and federal agencies can effectively enforce the laws.
(j) It is essential to the enforcement of this state’s labor laws that we have broad, clear, and effective protections for workers engaging in conduct protected by law from all forms of employer retaliation, including prohibiting immigration-related threats.

SEC. 2.

 Section 98.6 of the Labor Code is amended to read:

98.6.
 (a) A person shall not discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate, retaliate, or take any adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant engaged in any conduct delineated in this chapter, including the conduct described in subdivision (k) of Section 96, and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1101) of Part 3 of Division 2, or because the employee or applicant for employment has filed a bona fide complaint or claim or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or relating to his or her rights that are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner, made a written or oral complaint that he or she is owed unpaid wages, or because the employee has initiated any action or notice pursuant to Section 2699, or has testified or is about to testify in a proceeding pursuant to that section, or because of the exercise by the employee or applicant for employment on behalf of himself, herself, or others of any rights afforded him or her.
(b) (1) Any employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, retaliated against, subjected to an adverse action, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of his or her employment because the employee engaged in any conduct delineated in this chapter, including the conduct described in subdivision (k) of Section 96, and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1101) of Part 3 of Division 2, or because the employee has made a bona fide complaint or claim to the division pursuant to this part, or because the employee has initiated any action or notice pursuant to Section 2699 shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by those acts of the employer.
(2) An employer who willfully refuses to hire, promote, or otherwise restore an employee or former employee who has been determined to be eligible for rehiring or promotion by a grievance procedure, arbitration, or hearing authorized by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(3) In addition to other remedies available, an employer who violates this section is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per employee for each violation of this section.
(c) (1) Any applicant for employment who is refused employment, who is not selected for a training program leading to employment, or who in any other manner is discriminated against in the terms and conditions of any offer of employment because the applicant engaged in any conduct delineated in this chapter, including the conduct described in subdivision (k) of Section 96, and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1101) of Part 3 of Division 2, or because the applicant has made a bona fide complaint or claim to the division pursuant to this part, or because the employee has initiated any action or notice pursuant to Section 2699 shall be entitled to employment and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the prospective employer.
(2) This subdivision shall not be construed to invalidate any collective bargaining agreement that requires an applicant for a position that is subject to the collective bargaining agreement to sign a contract that protects either or both of the following as specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B), nor shall this subdivision be construed to invalidate any employer requirement of an applicant for a position that is not subject to a collective bargaining agreement to sign an employment contract that protects either or both of the following:
(A) An employer against any conduct that is actually in direct conflict with the essential enterprise-related interests of the employer and where breach of that contract would actually constitute a material and substantial disruption of the employer’s operation.
(B) A firefighter against any disease that is presumed to arise in the course and scope of employment, by limiting his or her consumption of tobacco products on and off the job.
(d) The provisions of this section creating new actions or remedies that are effective on January 1, 2002, to employees or applicants for employment do not apply to any state or local law enforcement agency, any religious association or corporation specified in subdivision (d) of Section 12926 of the Government Code, except as provided in Section 12926.2 of the Government Code, or any person described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.

SEC. 3.

 Section 98.7 of the Labor Code is amended to read:

98.7.
 (a) Any person who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner may file a complaint with the division within six months after the occurrence of the violation. The six-month period may be extended for good cause. The complaint shall be investigated by a discrimination complaint investigator in accordance with this section. The Labor Commissioner shall establish procedures for the investigation of discrimination complaints. A summary of the procedures shall be provided to each complainant and respondent at the time of initial contact. The Labor Commissioner shall inform complainants charging a violation of Section 6310 or 6311, at the time of initial contact, of his or her right to file a separate, concurrent complaint with the United States Department of Labor within 30 days after the occurrence of the violation.
(b) Each complaint of unlawful discharge or discrimination shall be assigned to a discrimination complaint investigator who shall prepare and submit a report to the Labor Commissioner based on an investigation of the complaint. The Labor Commissioner may designate the chief deputy or assistant Labor Commissioner or the chief counsel to receive and review the reports. The investigation shall include, where appropriate, interviews with the complainant, respondent, and any witnesses who may have information concerning the alleged violation, and a review of any documents that may be relevant to the disposition of the complaint. The identity of a witness shall remain confidential unless the identification of the witness becomes necessary to proceed with the investigation or to prosecute an action to enforce a determination. The investigation report submitted to the Labor Commissioner or designee shall include the statements and documents obtained in the investigation, and the findings of the investigator concerning whether a violation occurred. The Labor Commissioner may hold an investigative hearing whenever the Labor Commissioner determines, after review of the investigation report, that a hearing is necessary to fully establish the facts. In the hearing the investigation report shall be made a part of the record and the complainant and respondent shall have the opportunity to present further evidence. The Labor Commissioner shall issue, serve, and enforce any necessary subpoenas.
(c) If the Labor Commissioner determines a violation has occurred, he or she shall notify the complainant and respondent and direct the respondent to cease and desist from the violation and take any action deemed necessary to remedy the violation, including, where appropriate, rehiring or reinstatement, reimbursement of lost wages and interest thereon, payment of reasonable attorney’s fees associated with any hearing held by the Labor Commissioner in investigating the complaint, and the posting of notices to employees. If the respondent does not comply with the order within 10 working days following notification of the Labor Commissioner’s determination, the Labor Commissioner shall bring an action promptly in an appropriate court against the respondent. If the Labor Commissioner fails to bring an action in court promptly, the complainant may bring an action against the Labor Commissioner in any appropriate court for a writ of mandate to compel the Labor Commissioner to bring an action in court against the respondent. If the complainant prevails in his or her action for a writ, the court shall award the complainant court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, notwithstanding any other law. Regardless of any delay in bringing an action in court, the Labor Commissioner shall not be divested of jurisdiction. In any action, the court may permit the claimant to intervene as a party plaintiff to the action and shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to restrain the violation and to order all appropriate relief. Appropriate relief includes, but is not limited to, rehiring or reinstatement of the complainant, reimbursement of lost wages and interest thereon, and any other compensation or equitable relief as is appropriate under the circumstances of the case. The Labor Commissioner shall petition the court for appropriate temporary relief or restraining order unless he or she determines good cause exists for not doing so.
(d) (1) If the Labor Commissioner determines no violation has occurred, he or she shall notify the complainant and respondent and shall dismiss the complaint. The Labor Commissioner may direct the complainant to pay reasonable attorney’s fees associated with any hearing held by the Labor Commissioner if the Labor Commissioner finds the complaint was frivolous, unreasonable, groundless, and was brought in bad faith. The complainant may, after notification of the Labor Commissioner’s determination to dismiss a complaint, bring an action in an appropriate court, which shall have jurisdiction to determine whether a violation occurred, and if so, to restrain the violation and order all appropriate relief to remedy the violation. Appropriate relief includes, but is not limited to, rehiring or reinstatement of the complainant, reimbursement of lost wages and interest thereon, and other compensation or equitable relief as is appropriate under the circumstances of the case. When dismissing a complaint, the Labor Commissioner shall advise the complainant of his or her right to bring an action in an appropriate court if he or she disagrees with the determination of the Labor Commissioner, and in the case of an alleged violation of Section 6310 or 6311, to file a complaint against the state program with the United States Department of Labor.
(2) The filing of a timely complaint against the state program with the United States Department of Labor shall stay the Labor Commissioner’s dismissal of the division complaint until the United States Secretary of Labor makes a determination regarding the alleged violation. Within 15 days of receipt of that determination, the Labor Commissioner shall notify the parties whether he or she will reopen the complaint filed with the division or whether he or she will reaffirm the dismissal.
(e) The Labor Commissioner shall notify the complainant and respondent of his or her determination under subdivision (c) or paragraph (1) of subdivision (d), not later than 60 days after the filing of the complaint. Determinations by the Labor Commissioner under subdivision (c) or (d) may be appealed by the complainant or respondent to the Director of Industrial Relations within 10 days following notification of the Labor Commissioner’s determination. The appeal shall set forth specifically and in full detail the grounds upon which the appealing party considers the Labor Commissioner’s determination to be unjust or unlawful, and every issue to be considered by the director. The director may consider any issue relating to the initial determination and may modify, affirm, or reverse the Labor Commissioner’s determination. The director’s determination shall be the determination of the Labor Commissioner. The director shall notify the complainant and respondent of his or her determination within 10 days of receipt of the appeal.
(f) The rights and remedies provided by this section do not preclude an employee from pursuing any other rights and remedies under any other law.
(g) In the enforcement of this section, there is no requirement that an individual exhaust administrative remedies or procedures.

SEC. 4.

 Chapter 3.1 (commencing with Section 1019) is added to Part 3 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, to read:
CHAPTER  3.1. Unfair Immigration-Related Practices

1019.
 (a) It shall be unlawful for an employer or any other person or entity to engage in, or to direct another person or entity to engage in, unfair immigration-related practices against any person for the purpose of, or with the intent of, retaliating against any person for exercising any right protected under this code or by any local ordinance applicable to employees. Exercising a right protected by this code or local ordinance includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Filing a complaint or informing any person of an employer’s or other party’s alleged violation of this code or local ordinance, so long as the complaint or disclosure is made in good faith.
(2) Seeking information regarding whether an employer or other party is in compliance with this code or local ordinance.
(3) Informing a person of his or her potential rights and remedies under this code or local ordinance, and assisting him or her in asserting those rights.
(b) (1) As used in this chapter, “unfair immigration-related practice” means any of the following practices, when undertaken for the retaliatory purposes prohibited by subdivision (a):
(A) Requesting more or different documents than are required under Section 1324a(b) of Title 8 of the United States Code, or a refusal to honor documents tendered pursuant to that section that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine.
(B) Using the federal E-Verify system to check the employment authorization status of a person at a time or in a manner not required under Section 1324a(b) of Title 8 of the United States Code, or not authorized under any memorandum of understanding governing the use of the federal E-Verify system.
(C) Threatening to file or the filing of a false police report.
(D) Threatening to contact or contacting immigration authorities.
(2) “Unfair immigration-related practice” does not include conduct undertaken at the express and specific direction or request of the federal government.
(c) Engaging in an unfair immigration-related practice against a person within 90 days of the person’s exercise of rights protected under this code or local ordinance applicable to employees shall raise a rebuttable presumption of having done so in retaliation for the exercise of those rights.
(d) (1) An employee or other person who is the subject of an unfair immigration-related practice prohibited by this section, or a representative of that employee or person, may bring a civil action for equitable relief and any damages or penalties, in accordance with this section.
(2) Upon a finding by a court of applicable jurisdiction of a violation this section:
(A) For a first violation, the court in its discretion, may order the appropriate government agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this chapter that are held by the violating party for a period of up to 14 days. For the purposes of this paragraph, the licenses that are subject to suspension are all licenses held by the violating party specific to the business location or locations where the unfair immigration-related practice occurred. In determining whether a suspension of all licenses is appropriate, the court shall consider whether the employer knowingly committed an unfair immigration practice, the good faith efforts of the employer to resolve any alleged unfair immigration related practice after receiving notice of the violations, as well as the harm other employees of the employer, or employees of other employers on a multiemployer jobsite, will suffer as a result of the suspension of all licenses. On receipt of the court’s order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court’s order.
(B) For a second violation, the court, in its discretion, may order the appropriate government agencies to suspend all licenses that are held by the violating party specific to the business location or locations where the unfair immigration-related practice occurred, for a period of up to 30 days. In determining whether a suspension of all licenses is appropriate, the court shall consider whether the employer knowingly committed an unfair immigration practice, the good faith efforts of the employer to resolve any alleged unfair immigration related practice after receiving notice of the violations, as well as the harm other employees of the employer, or employees of other employers on a multiemployer jobsite, will suffer as a result of the suspension of all licenses. On receipt of the court’s order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately suspend the licenses.
(C) For a third violation, or any violation thereafter, the court, in its discretion, may order the appropriate government agencies to suspend for a period of up to 90 days all licenses that are held by the violating party specific to the business location or locations where the unfair immigration-related practice occurred. In determining whether a suspension of all licenses is appropriate, the court shall consider whether the employer knowingly committed an unfair immigration practice, the good faith efforts of the employer to resolve any alleged unfair immigration related practice after receiving notice of the violations, as well as the harm other employees of the employer, or employees of other employers on a multiemployer jobsite, will suffer as a result of the suspension of all licenses. On receipt of the court’s order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately suspend the licenses.
(3) An employee or other person who is the subject of an unfair immigration-document practice prohibited by this section, and who prevails in an action authorized by this section, shall recover its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including any expert witness costs.
(e) As used in this chapter:
(1) “License” means any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration, or charter that is required by law and that is issued by any agency for the purposes of operating a business in this state. “License” does not include a professional license.
(2) “Violation” means each incident when an unfair immigration practice was committed, without reference to the number of employees involved in the incident.

SEC. 5.

 Section 1024.6 is added to the Labor Code, to read:

1024.6.
 An employer may not discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate, retaliate, or take any adverse action against an employee because the employee updates or attempts to update his or her personal information, unless the changes are directly related to the skill set, qualifications, or knowledge required for the job.

SEC. 6.

 Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code is amended to read:

1102.5.
 (a) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, or from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.
(b) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.
(c) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.
(d) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for having exercised his or her rights under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) in any former employment.
(e) A report made by an employee of a government agency to his or her employer is a disclosure of information to a government or law enforcement agency pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b).
(f) In addition to other penalties, an employer that is a corporation or limited liability company is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation of this section.
(g) This section does not apply to rules, regulations, or policies that implement, or to actions by employers against employees who violate, the confidentiality of the lawyer-client privilege of Article 3 (commencing with Section 950) of, or the physician-patient privilege of Article 6 (commencing with Section 990) of, Chapter 4 of Division 8 of the Evidence Code, or trade secret information.

SEC. 6.5.

 Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code is amended to read:

1102.5.
 (a) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, or to a person with authority over the employee or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.
(b) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, or to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.
(c) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.
(d) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for having exercised his or her rights under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) in any former employment.
(e) A report made by an employee of a government agency to his or her employer is a disclosure of information to a government or law enforcement agency pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b).
(f) In addition to other penalties, an employer that is a corporation or limited liability company is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation of this section.
(g) This section does not apply to rules, regulations, or policies that implement, or to actions by employers against employees who violate, the confidentiality of the lawyer-client privilege of Article 3 (commencing with Section 950) of, the physician-patient privilege of Article 6 (commencing with Section 990) of, Chapter 4 of Division 8 of the Evidence Code, or trade secret information.

SEC. 7.

 Section 1103 of the Labor Code is amended to read:

1103.
 An employer or any other person or entity that violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable, in the case of an individual, by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year or a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or both that fine and imprisonment, or, in the case of a corporation, by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

SEC. 8.

 The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

SEC. 9.

 Section 6.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code proposed by both this bill and Senate Bill 496. It shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2014, (2) each bill amends Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Senate Bill 496, in which case Section 6 of this bill shall not become operative.

SEC. 10.

 No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.