Fee petition mechanics · Updated July 2026
California immigration worker protection act attorney fee petition mechanics: date of immigration-related adverse employment action as primary Welch anchor, Lab. Code § 1019.2 mandatory attorney fees to prevailing employee
California Immigration Worker Protection Act enforcement (Lab. Code §§ 1019–1019.2 — SB 1001, effective January 1, 2016; § 1019.1 prohibits five categories of employer conduct: (a) requesting more or different documentation than what the Immigration and Nationality Act requires for I-9 employment eligibility verification; (b) refusing to accept documentation that on its face reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee, where the documentation would satisfy I-9 requirements; (c) using the E-Verify work authorization verification system to check the employment authorization status of a person at a time or in a manner not required or authorized by federal law — including unauthorized reverification of existing employees' authorization status outside the periods required by federal law; (d) threatening to contact or report to immigration authorities a person known or suspected to be undocumented, or threatening to contact or report to immigration authorities the family members, friends, or acquaintances of an employee; (e) using threats or false accusations concerning immigration status to retaliate against any person who exercises any right protected under California law, including but not limited to the right to file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner, the right to request a meal or rest period, the right to take protected leave, and the right to refuse to perform unlawful work; § 1019.2(a): a person who violates § 1019.1 is subject to a civil penalty of $10,000 for each violation; § 1019.2(a)(3): 'reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing employee' — MANDATORY unilateral attorney fees to the prevailing employee; the primary institutional calendar is the EMPLOYER'S OWN HRIS AND IMMIGRATION COMPLIANCE SYSTEM CALENDAR (Workday HCM, ADP Workforce Now, BambooHR, Paylocity, SAP SuccessFactors, Rippling — employer's own institutional HR system records termination dates, suspension dates, schedule reduction dates, demotion dates, and adverse employment action notices on the employer's own institutional calendar entirely outside the employee attorney's scheduling control); DHS E-Verify portal records E-Verify case creation date, tentative non-confirmation (TNC) issuance date, employee TNC notification date, employee decision to contest date, referral date to SSA or DHS, and final non-confirmation date on DHS's own institutional E-Verify system calendar entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control; SB 1001 enacted January 1, 2016 — enacted in response to high-profile Los Angeles garment district and janitorial services immigration enforcement retaliations where employers used immigration threats to suppress wage claims by undocumented workers; DISTINCT from Lab. Code § 1102.5 general whistleblower retaliation [tier_yy/blog — § 1102.5 covers retaliation for disclosing suspected violations of law; § 1019.1 covers using immigration threats as the retaliation instrument for any California workplace right exercise], FEHA national origin discrimination [Gov. Code § 12940(a) — § 12940(a) covers national origin as protected characteristic; § 1019.1 covers immigration status threat as retaliation mechanism; concurrent FEHA/Title VII claim creates Ketchum/Dague split not required for pure § 1019.1 claim], Lab. Code § 98.6 DLSE complaint retaliation [tier_eee — § 98.6 covers retaliation for filing DLSE complaint; § 1019.1 covers immigration threat as retaliation for any California workplace right exercise]; no direct IRCA private attorney fee parallel for California § 1019.1 violations (IRCA 8 U.S.C. § 1324b covers national origin and immigration status discrimination in hiring and firing but does not specifically prohibit using immigration threats as retaliation instruments for California wage complaint exercise; DOJ OSC Office of Special Counsel IRCA enforcement is administrative only; no IRCA private right of action with attorney fee provision) → pure Ketchum no Dague; Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001); PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000); Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983) lodestar from DATE OF EMPLOYER'S IMMIGRATION-RELATED ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION; Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees) — solos billing hourly on mandatory attorney fees — in actions where the primary Welch temporal anchor is the DATE OF EMPLOYER'S IMMIGRATION-RELATED ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION (the ONLY primary anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series where the retaliation instrument is an IMMIGRATION AUTHORITY THREAT OR FALSE ACCUSATION — the employer's own Workday/ADP/BambooHR/Paylocity/SAP SuccessFactors/Rippling HRIS records the adverse action date on the employer's own institutional calendar entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control; DHS E-Verify portal records unauthorized E-Verify activity on DHS's own institutional calendar; ICE enforcement calendar records ICE worksite enforcement action on ICE's own institutional calendar; DLSE complaint calendar records § 1019.2 complaint receipt on DLSE's own institutional calendar; no IRCA private attorney fee parallel → pure Ketchum no Dague) — generate three billing gaps driven by § 1019.1 immigration-related adverse employment action identification and documentation advisory calls, the concurrent employer HRIS and E-Verify calendar and ICE/HSI worksite enforcement calendar and DLSE Labor Commissioner complaint calendar advisory calls on external institutional calendars entirely outside attorney control, and the § 1019.2 attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier advisory calls: § 1019.1 immigration adverse employment action identification and documentation advisory calls (7 clients × 2 calls × 42 min × 55% untracked ≈ 5.39 hrs = $1,617–$2,695/year at $300–$500/hr), employer HRIS and E-Verify calendar advisory and ICE/HSI worksite enforcement calendar advisory and DLSE Labor Commissioner complaint calendar advisory (6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 7.26 hrs = $2,178–$3,630/year), and § 1019.2 attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier advisory calls (5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 4.03 hrs = $1,210–$2,017/year). For a solo California immigration worker protection practice, the annual billing gap from advisory call underlogging is $5,005–$8,342.
TL;DR
ClaimHour captures every § 1019.1 immigration-related adverse employment action identification and documentation advisory call that starts the § 1019.2 fee documentation period from the DATE OF EMPLOYER'S IMMIGRATION-RELATED ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION (in the employer's own Workday/ADP Workforce Now/BambooHR/Paylocity/SAP SuccessFactors/Rippling HRIS calendar — ONLY anchor in series where the retaliation instrument is an immigration authority threat or false accusation; § 1019.2(a)(3) mandatory attorney fees to prevailing employee; SB 1001, effective January 1, 2016; § 1019.1(d) prohibition on threatening to report employee to immigration authorities; no IRCA private attorney fee parallel → pure Ketchum no Dague; DISTINCT from § 1102.5 general whistleblower [tier_yy], FEHA § 12940(a) national origin [Dague split required for FEHA/Title VII concurrent claims], § 98.6 DLSE complaint retaliation [tier_eee]), every concurrent employer HRIS and DHS E-Verify calendar advisory and ICE/HSI worksite enforcement calendar advisory and DLSE Labor Commissioner complaint calendar advisory on external institutional calendars entirely outside the attorney's scheduling control, and every § 1019.2 attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier advisory call on the post-judgment fee petition calendar — passively, no timer, no audio, no call contents. $29–$59/mo. No PMS required.
§ 1019.1 immigration-related adverse employment action identification and documentation: calls on the employer's own HRIS and immigration compliance system calendar
The DATE OF EMPLOYER'S IMMIGRATION-RELATED ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION is the primary Welch temporal anchor for § 1019.2 attorney fee billing documentation in a Lab. Code §§ 1019–1019.2 Immigration Worker Protection Act action. This date is in the employer's own HRIS and immigration compliance system calendar — recording the date the employer discharged, suspended, demoted, reduced hours of, or otherwise subjected the employee to adverse action using immigration authority threats or false accusations as the retaliation instrument, on an institutional calendar entirely outside the employee attorney's scheduling control. The Hensley lodestar starts from this date for five reasons: (1) the employer's own HRIS records the adverse action date: Workday HCM, ADP Workforce Now, BambooHR, Paylocity, SAP SuccessFactors, and Rippling each record termination dates, suspension dates, schedule reduction dates, demotion dates, and performance improvement plan (PIP) imposition dates on the employer's own institutional HR calendar entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control; (2) the employer's own HRIS records the protected activity date that preceded the adverse action: if the employee filed a DLSE wage claim, requested a meal or rest break, filed a PAGA notice, or exercised CFRA/PDL leave rights before the immigration threat, the preceding protected activity date is typically in the employer's own HRIS — establishing the temporal proximity between protected activity and adverse action for the § 1019.1 causal nexus analysis; (3) DHS E-Verify portal records unauthorized E-Verify reverification: if the § 1019.1 violation was unauthorized E-Verify reverification of an existing employee's authorization status (§ 1019.1(c)), the unauthorized E-Verify case creation date, case type, and case outcome are in the DHS E-Verify portal on DHS's own institutional calendar — the unauthorized reverification date is in the E-Verify system entirely outside the employee attorney's scheduling control; (4) ICE worksite enforcement records employer-initiated immigration report: if the employer reported the employee to ICE or threatened to do so (§ 1019.1(d)), any resulting ICE enforcement action date (worksite raid, administrative arrest warrant, I-9 audit) is on ICE's own institutional enforcement calendar entirely outside the employee attorney's scheduling control — establishing the employer's use of immigration authorities as a retaliation instrument; (5) the employer's own HRIS records the employer's stated reason for the adverse action: the employer will typically document a facially neutral reason for the adverse action in the HRIS (e.g., 'failure to meet performance standards' or 'violation of attendance policy') — the Hensley lodestar begins at the adverse action date because that is when the § 1019.1 causal nexus between the employee's protected activity and the employer's immigration threat retaliation crystallized.
Three initial advisory call types generate untracked billing from the adverse action date: (1) § 1019.1 violation identification and specific prohibition analysis advisory — arrives when employee retains § 1019.1 counsel (§ 1019.1 eligibility analysis: [a] identify the specific § 1019.1 violation: (i) improper I-9 document request [§ 1019.1(a)] — did the employer request a specific document (e.g., a 'green card' or 'social security card') rather than allowing the employee to choose from the List A, B, or C documents authorized by the INA I-9 form? INA § 274B(a)(6) prohibits I-9 document abuse; § 1019.1(a) creates a California parallel civil right of action with attorney fees; (ii) refusal of legally sufficient I-9 documents [§ 1019.1(b)] — did the employer refuse to accept a facially genuine List A or List B/C document that satisfies I-9 requirements? (iii) unauthorized E-Verify reverification [§ 1019.1(c)] — did the employer use E-Verify to reverify the authorization of an existing employee at a time not required or authorized by federal law (e.g., after the employee filed a wage claim)? (iv) immigration threat as retaliation [§ 1019.1(d)] — the most common violation: did the employer threaten to call ICE, threaten to report the employee as undocumented, or threaten to report the employee's family members to immigration authorities in retaliation for the employee filing a DLSE wage claim, requesting overtime pay, requesting meal breaks, or exercising any other California workplace right? (v) false accusation of undocumented status [§ 1019.1(e)] — did the employer make a false public accusation that the employee is undocumented in retaliation for the employee's California workplace right exercise?; [b] identify the California workplace right exercise that triggered the immigration threat: DLSE wage claim filing, § 246.5 paid sick leave request, PAGA § 2699.3 notice filing, refusal of unpaid overtime instruction, CFRA/PDL leave exercise, union organizing activity; [c] confirm temporal proximity: § 1019.1 causal nexus is established primarily through temporal proximity between the employee's protected activity date and the employer's immigration threat/adverse action date — both dates are in the employer's own HRIS; [d] calculate damages: § 1019.2(a)(1) lost wages from adverse action date through reinstatement or judgment; § 1019.2(a)(2) actual damages (emotional distress, medical expenses from stress-related illness); § 1019.2(a)(3) mandatory attorney fees; § 1019.2(b) $10,000 civil penalty per violation; [e] concurrent FEHA national origin discrimination analysis: if the employer used immigration status as a proxy for national origin, a concurrent FEHA § 12940(a) claim may be available — but the FEHA/Title VII parallel creates a Ketchum/Dague split requirement for the FEHA claim components that does not apply to the pure § 1019.1 claim; 42–48 min per call); (2) employer HRIS records and E-Verify portal records advisory — arrives when the employer's institutional records are needed to establish the § 1019.1 violation (employer institutional records analysis: [a] Workday/ADP/BambooHR/Paylocity/SAP SuccessFactors/Rippling HRIS termination and performance records: the employer's own HRIS records the adverse action date, the stated reason for the adverse action, the employee's personnel file history, and any performance improvement plan imposition date — establishing the employer's documented reason for the adverse action and the timing relative to the employee's protected activity; [b] DHS E-Verify case log: if the § 1019.1(c) violation was unauthorized E-Verify reverification, the employer's E-Verify case log records the case creation date, case type (initial verification vs. reverification), and case outcome — the unauthorized reverification date in the employer's E-Verify portal is on DHS's institutional calendar entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control; [c] employer I-9 records: the employer's I-9 employment eligibility verification records must be retained for three years from hire date or one year after termination, whichever is later (INA § 274A(b)(3)) — the employer's I-9 records establish what documents the employer requested and whether the employer refused legally sufficient documents (§ 1019.1(a)–(b) violations); [d] employer HR correspondence records: if the employer sent the employee a written termination notice or written performance warning using language that referenced the employee's immigration status or I-9 documentation, that correspondence is in the employer's HRIS on the employer's institutional calendar; 42–48 min per call); (3) protected California workplace right exercise analysis and causal nexus documentation advisory — arrives when the causal nexus between the protected activity and the immigration threat needs to be established (causal nexus analysis: [a] DLSE wage claim filing date: if the employee's protected activity was filing a DLSE wage claim, the DLSE's own institutional calendar records the complaint receipt date on the DLSE's own institutional calendar — this date, combined with the employer's immigration threat date on the employer's HRIS, establishes the § 1019.1(d) causal nexus through temporal proximity; [b] PAGA § 2699.3 notice filing date: if the protected activity was filing a PAGA notice to the LWDA, the LWDA's own institutional calendar records the PAGA notice receipt date — establishing the predicate protected activity for the § 1019.1(d) immigration threat retaliation; [c] CFRA/PDL leave request date: if the protected activity was a CFRA or PDL leave request, the employer's own HRIS records the leave request date, the employer's CFRA/PDL leave designation date, and any adverse action taken after the leave request on the employer's own institutional HR calendar; [d] confirm § 1019.1 causal nexus: the employer's immigration threat or adverse action must be causally connected to the employee's protected California workplace right exercise — temporal proximity (adverse action within days of protected activity) combined with the employer's prior knowledge of the protected activity (established from the DLSE claim calendar or PAGA notice receipt date on their respective institutional calendars) establishes the § 1019.1 causal nexus; 42–48 min per call). At 55% untracked: 7 clients × 2 calls × 42 min × 55% = 323.4 min / 60 = 5.39 hours = $1,617–$2,695/year at $300–$500/hr.
Employer HRIS and E-Verify calendar and ICE/HSI worksite enforcement calendar and DLSE Labor Commissioner complaint calendar: calls on external institutional calendars entirely outside attorney control
A California Lab. Code §§ 1019–1019.2 Immigration Worker Protection Act case typically involves three concurrent external institutional calendars that run entirely outside the employee attorney's scheduling control: the employer's own HRIS and DHS E-Verify portal calendar [Workday HCM, ADP Workforce Now, BambooHR, Paylocity, SAP SuccessFactors, Rippling each record: (a) adverse action date in the employer's own institutional HRIS calendar: the termination date, suspension date, or schedule change date is recorded in the employer's HRIS on the employer's own institutional calendar entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control; (b) DHS E-Verify portal case creation date: if the employer created an E-Verify case for an existing employee (unauthorized reverification under § 1019.1(c)), the E-Verify case creation date is in the DHS E-Verify portal on DHS's own institutional calendar; (c) E-Verify tentative non-confirmation (TNC) issuance date: if the E-Verify query resulted in a TNC, the TNC issuance date is on DHS's own institutional E-Verify calendar — the TNC date relative to the employee's protected activity establishes whether the employer used E-Verify as a retaliation instrument; (d) final non-confirmation date: if the employer used the E-Verify final non-confirmation as a basis for terminating the employee's employment (constructing an immigration-status-based pretext for retaliation), the final non-confirmation date is on DHS's own institutional calendar; (e) ICE Notice of Inspection (NOI) date: if the employer received an ICE NOI for an I-9 audit that triggered the unauthorized reverification, the NOI date is on ICE's own institutional calendar entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control]; the ICE/HSI worksite enforcement calendar [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations worksite enforcement calendar: (a) employer-initiated ICE report date: if the employer reported the employee to ICE or threatened to do so (the core of the § 1019.1(d) retaliation claim), any resulting ICE case opening date is on ICE's own institutional complaint database calendar entirely outside the employee attorney's scheduling control; (b) ICE worksite enforcement action date: if ICE conducted a worksite raid or enforcement action in response to the employer's tip, the raid date is on ICE's own institutional enforcement calendar — establishing that the employer's immigration threat was actionable (employer actually did contact ICE) and that the ICE action followed the employee's protected activity; (c) ICE I-9 audit finding date: if ICE issued I-9 audit findings (Form I-763, Notice of Suspect Documents) in connection with the employer's I-9 audit, the finding date is on ICE's own institutional calendar; (d) ICE administrative arrest warrant date: if ICE issued an administrative arrest warrant for the employee following the employer's report, the warrant date is on ICE's own institutional enforcement calendar — establishing the most severe form of § 1019.1(d) retaliation (employer caused ICE to arrest the employee for exercising California workplace rights); the ICE arrest warrant date may also trigger a motion to stay civil discovery pending the criminal immigration proceeding]; and the DLSE Labor Commissioner complaint calendar [California DLSE § 1019.2 civil enforcement complaint calendar: (a) DLSE § 1019.2 complaint receipt date: if the employee filed a DLSE § 1019.2 complaint, the DLSE's own institutional calendar records the complaint receipt date, the DLSE case number assignment date, the investigation opening date, and the investigation findings date on the DLSE's own institutional calendar entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control; (b) concurrent DLSE wage claim calendar: in most § 1019.1 cases, the employer's immigration threat was used to suppress the employee's wage claim — if the employee filed a concurrent DLSE wage claim for the underlying suppressed wages (unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, meal/rest break violations), the wage claim ODA number, hearing date, and wage claim decision date are on the DLSE's own institutional calendar; the wage claim calendar and the § 1019.2 enforcement calendar run simultaneously on two separate DLSE institutional calendars; (c) DLSE civil citation calendar: the DLSE's civil citation issuance date, employer response deadline, and administrative hearing date for § 1019.2 violations run on the DLSE's own institutional calendar entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control; (d) DLSE wage claim and § 1019.2 case coordination calendar: if the employee pursues both a DLSE wage claim and a § 1019.2 civil enforcement complaint, the DLSE's own institutional coordination calendar creates a parallel scheduling constraint that runs on two separate DLSE calendars simultaneously entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control]. Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001). PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000). Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983) lodestar from DATE OF EMPLOYER'S IMMIGRATION-RELATED ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION. Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees.
Three concurrent external institutional calendar advisory call types generate untracked billing: (1) employer HRIS and DHS E-Verify portal calendar monitoring advisory — arrives when employer's institutional records control case development (employer and E-Verify calendar analysis: [a] Workday/ADP/BambooHR/Paylocity/SAP/Rippling HRIS adverse action records: the employer's HRIS records will be central to discovery — the adverse action date, the stated reason for the adverse action, and the employee's preceding protected activity history (wage complaints, leave requests) are all in the employer's own HRIS; [b] DHS E-Verify portal log: if the § 1019.1(c) violation was unauthorized E-Verify reverification, the employer's E-Verify case log is discoverable and will show the unauthorized reverification date relative to the employee's protected activity date; [c] ICE NOI response calendar: if the employer received an ICE NOI for an I-9 audit, the employer's NOI response deadline runs on ICE's own institutional calendar; the employer's response to the NOI may reveal whether the employer used the I-9 audit as an opportunity to target employees who had filed wage claims; [d] employer I-9 records retention calendar: the employer must retain I-9 records for three years from hire or one year after termination — the I-9 records retention calendar runs on the employer's own institutional HR records calendar; 44–50 min per call); (2) ICE/HSI worksite enforcement calendar monitoring advisory — arrives when federal immigration enforcement overlaps with the civil § 1019.1 action (ICE enforcement calendar analysis: [a] ICE worksite enforcement action calendar: if ICE conducted a worksite enforcement action following the employer's tip, the enforcement action date establishes that the employer's § 1019.1(d) threat was carried out — not merely a threat; the ICE enforcement action date is on ICE's own institutional calendar entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control; [b] ICE arrest warrant civil discovery stay: if ICE issued an administrative arrest warrant for the employee following the employer's report, the employee's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination may apply in the concurrent civil § 1019.2 action — creating a potential civil discovery stay while immigration proceedings are pending; the stay motion calendar runs on the civil court's own institutional calendar; [c] ICE I-9 audit finding date and employer NOI compliance calendar: ICE's own institutional enforcement calendar records the employer's NOI response deadline and the I-9 audit finding date — these dates establish the timing of the employer's I-9 audit relative to the employee's protected activity; [d] IRCA § 274B administrative enforcement calendar: if the employer's I-9 document abuse also constitutes an IRCA § 274B national origin discrimination violation, the DOJ OSC's own administrative enforcement calendar (complaint receipt date, investigation opening date, administrative hearing date) runs on the DOJ OSC's own institutional calendar entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control; 44–50 min per call); (3) DLSE Labor Commissioner complaint calendar monitoring advisory — arrives when DLSE proceedings overlap with the civil § 1019.1 action (DLSE calendar analysis: [a] DLSE § 1019.2 enforcement complaint calendar: the DLSE's own institutional calendar records the § 1019.2 complaint receipt date, investigation opening date, investigation findings date, and civil citation issuance date — these dates run on the DLSE's own institutional calendar independently of the civil § 1019.1 lawsuit; [b] concurrent DLSE wage claim calendar: if the employee filed a concurrent DLSE wage claim for the underlying suppressed wages, the wage claim ODA number, hearing date, and ODA decision date run on the DLSE's own institutional wage claim calendar — creating a parallel external calendar constraint that must be monitored simultaneously with the § 1019.2 civil action; [c] DLSE Labor Commissioner citation and penalty calendar: the DLSE's civil citation for § 1019.2 violations imposes a $10,000 per-violation penalty — if the employer appeals the DLSE citation, the appeal hearing date runs on the DLSE's own institutional appeal calendar; [d] no IRCA private attorney fee provision for California § 1019.1 violations (IRCA 8 U.S.C. § 1324b administrative enforcement only; DOJ OSC enforcement is administrative; no private right of action with IRCA attorney fees) → pure Ketchum no Dague for entire § 1019.2 attorney fee claim; 44–50 min per call). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% = 435.6 min / 60 = 7.26 hours = $2,178–$3,630/year at $300–$500/hr.
§ 1019.2 attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier: calls on the post-judgment fee petition calendar
Lab. Code § 1019.2(a)(3) provides mandatory unilateral attorney fees to the prevailing employee: 'reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing employee.' The § 1019.2 fee petition requires a Hensley lodestar from the DATE OF EMPLOYER'S IMMIGRATION-RELATED ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION through § 1019.1 violation identification, protected activity causal nexus documentation, employer HRIS and E-Verify calendar monitoring, ICE/HSI worksite enforcement calendar monitoring, DLSE Labor Commissioner complaint calendar monitoring, litigation, and fee petition. Because there is no direct IRCA private attorney fee parallel for California § 1019.1 violations (IRCA 8 U.S.C. § 1324b anti-discrimination covers national origin discrimination in hiring and firing but does not specifically prohibit using immigration threats as retaliation instruments for California wage complaint exercise; DOJ OSC IRCA enforcement is administrative only; no IRCA private right of action with attorney fees), no Ketchum/Dague split is required for the pure § 1019.1 claim — the pure Ketchum five-factor multiplier applies. Immigration threat retaliation = retaliation through fear rather than direct adverse action: the uncertainty of establishing the causal nexus between the employee's protected California workplace right exercise and the employer's immigration threat is itself a primary Ketchum contingency factor at the DATE OF ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION. Note: if the case includes a concurrent FEHA § 12940(a) national origin discrimination claim, the Title VII federal parallel requires a Ketchum/Dague split for FEHA hours; Hensley data-type-by-data-type segregation is required for any action involving both pure § 1019.1 hours and concurrent FEHA/Title VII hours. Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001). PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000). Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983). Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees.
Two § 1019.2 post-judgment advisory call types generate untracked billing: (1) § 1019.2 damages calculation and fee petition component assembly advisory — arrives at judgment (§ 1019.2 damages and fee components: [a] lost wages from adverse action date: § 1019.2(a)(1) authorizes recovery of wages lost from the date of the immigration-related adverse employment action through reinstatement or judgment — the lost wages period runs from the adverse action date in the employer's own HRIS through the court's reinstatement order or judgment date; [b] actual damages: § 1019.2(a)(2) authorizes recovery of actual damages including emotional distress damages from the employer's use of immigration threats as a retaliation instrument; [c] civil penalty: § 1019.2(b) imposes a $10,000 civil penalty per § 1019.1 violation — if the employer committed multiple § 1019.1 violations (threatened multiple employees, used E-Verify to reverify multiple existing employees), each violation is a separate $10,000 civil penalty; [d] § 1019.2(a)(3) attorney fees Hensley lodestar from DATE OF EMPLOYER'S IMMIGRATION-RELATED ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION: § 1019.1 violation identification hours; protected activity causal nexus documentation hours; employer HRIS and E-Verify calendar monitoring hours; ICE/HSI worksite enforcement calendar monitoring hours; DLSE § 1019.2 complaint calendar monitoring hours; concurrent DLSE wage claim calendar monitoring hours; litigation hours; fee petition hours; Missouri v. Jenkins fees-on-fees; [e] Hensley segregation if concurrent FEHA claim: if the case included a concurrent FEHA § 12940(a) national origin discrimination claim, hours spent on FEHA-only issues must be segregated from § 1019.1 hours for the Ketchum/Dague split on FEHA hours; 44–50 min per call); (2) pure Ketchum five-factor multiplier analysis advisory — arrives at fee petition (Ketchum five-factor multiplier for § 1019.2 fee petition [Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001)]; pure Ketchum — no Dague constraint — because no IRCA private attorney fee provision exists for California § 1019.1 violations: [a] § 1019.1 causal nexus uncertainty — establishing that the employer's immigration threat or adverse action was causally connected to the employee's California workplace right exercise required at inception a showing of temporal proximity and the employer's knowledge of the protected activity — both elements drawn from institutional calendars (employer HRIS, DLSE complaint calendar, PAGA notice receipt calendar) entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control; [b] immigration threat retaliation vs. legitimate I-9 compliance uncertainty — employers will defend § 1019.1(c) unauthorized E-Verify reverification claims by arguing the reverification was required by a concurrent ICE NOI; distinguishing legitimate ICE NOI-driven reverification from retaliatory reverification required at inception an analysis of the ICE NOI date relative to the employee's protected activity date on ICE's own institutional calendar; [c] § 1019.1 damages uncertainty — the actual damages component of § 1019.2(a)(2) (emotional distress from immigration threats against the employee and the employee's family members or relatives) required at inception a damages theory subject to substantial quantum uncertainty; [d] ICE civil discovery stay uncertainty — if ICE issued an administrative arrest warrant for the employee following the employer's report, the civil discovery stay motion uncertainty was a primary Ketchum contingency factor at inception; [e] employer defense of legitimate termination pretext — the employer's documented HRIS reason for the adverse action (facially neutral performance or attendance basis) created at inception a pretext analysis uncertainty requiring comparison of the employee's performance records with similarly situated employees not engaged in protected activity; PLCM Group 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000) prevailing market rate for employment retaliation litigation; Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees; 44–50 min per call). At 55% untracked: 5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% = 242 min / 60 = 4.03 hours = $1,210–$2,017/year at $300–$500/hr.
How ClaimHour fits California § 1019.1 immigration worker protection act practice
California Immigration Worker Protection Act Lab. Code §§ 1019–1019.2 solos billing hourly on mandatory attorney fees — with § 1019.1 immigration-related adverse employment action identification and documentation advisory calls arriving when employee retains § 1019.1 counsel (DATE OF EMPLOYER'S IMMIGRATION-RELATED ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION = primary Welch anchor; in employer's own Workday/ADP Workforce Now/BambooHR/Paylocity/SAP SuccessFactors/Rippling HRIS calendar — ONLY anchor in series where retaliation instrument is an immigration authority threat or false accusation; § 1019.2(a)(3) mandatory attorney fees to prevailing employee; SB 1001, effective January 1, 2016; § 1019.1(a)–(e) five categories of prohibited immigration-related employer conduct; no IRCA private attorney fee parallel → pure Ketchum no Dague; DISTINCT from § 1102.5 general whistleblower [tier_yy], FEHA § 12940(a) national origin discrimination [Dague split for concurrent FEHA/Title VII hours], § 98.6 DLSE complaint retaliation [tier_eee]), employer HRIS and DHS E-Verify portal calendar monitoring advisory calls on the employer's own institutional HRIS calendar and DHS's own institutional E-Verify portal calendar entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control, ICE/HSI worksite enforcement calendar monitoring advisory calls on ICE's own institutional enforcement calendar entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control, DLSE Labor Commissioner complaint calendar monitoring advisory calls on the DLSE's own institutional calendar entirely outside employee attorney's scheduling control, and § 1019.2 attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier advisory calls arriving at judgment — and if your § 1019.2 lodestar documentation must satisfy the Hensley contemporaneous-record standard from the DATE OF EMPLOYER'S IMMIGRATION-RELATED ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION through § 1019.1 violation identification, protected activity causal nexus documentation, employer HRIS and E-Verify monitoring, ICE/HSI enforcement monitoring, DLSE complaint monitoring, and § 1019.2 damages, pure Ketchum multiplier, and fee petition, ClaimHour was built for that gap.