Unlawful immigration-related practices.

Legislative history headers removed (amendment dates, author names, vote/fiscal notes) and replaced with enrolled bill markings including 'Passed the Assembly August 26, 2026' and 'Passed the Senate August 25, 2026.'

Line numbers, page breaks, and column formatting from the Senate amendment layout were removed in favor of clean enrolled bill pagination.

The legislative counsel's digest header changed from 'AB 2495, as amended, Kalra' to 'AB 2495, Kalra,' dropping 'as amended' consistent with the bill reaching final enrollment.

A Governor's receipt and approval signature block was added at the end of the enrolled version.

The anti-dissuasion provision (subdivision b) now applies to any 'person' rather than only an 'employee,' meaning anyone whose legal rights are protected by local, state, or federal employment statutes can claim they were dissuaded from exercising those rights.

Subdivision (b) no longer covers conduct related to a person's 'actual' immigration status - only 'perceived' immigration status. This narrows the dissuasion prong by requiring that the employer's conduct be tied to how they perceive the person's immigration status, not their actual status.

A new subdivision (i) defines 'employee' for purposes of this section as including an applicant, employee, or former employee, clarifying that job seekers and separated workers are also covered.

Subdivision (a) no longer covers 'preventing' a person from exercising rights; that concept is now addressed only through the dissuasion standard in subdivision (b).

The protected class in the dissuasion provision (subdivision b) is narrowed from 'a reasonable person' to 'an employee,' limiting who can claim protection under that standard.

The dissuasion standard in subdivision (b) now requires that conduct 'reasonably tend to' dissuade, adding a higher threshold than the prior language which simply required that it 'would dissuade.'

New subdivision (e) states that actual immigration status is irrelevant to the determination of liability under this section, consistent with Section 1171.5.

Item (E) of the definition of 'unfair immigration-related practice' - a catch-all covering any conduct related to immigration status that would dissuade a person from exercising legal rights - is removed, since that concept is now handled directly by subdivision (b).

The rebuttable presumption of retaliation (subdivision d) now applies to any 'violation of this section' rather than only an 'unfair immigration-related practice,' broadening when the presumption is triggered.

The factor courts consider in deciding whether to suspend all licenses is broadened from harm to 'employees of the employer' to harm to 'other employees' generally, including those of other employers on a multiemployer job site.

Protected rights now extend to any local, state, or federal statute or regulation applicable to employees, rather than only the Labor Code and local ordinances. This appears throughout the bill in the retaliation provision, the list of protected activities, the rebuttable presumption, and remedies sections.

Workers who are 'attempting to exercise' a protected right are now explicitly covered, not just those who have already exercised it. This closes a gap where an employer could punish a worker for trying to file a complaint or seek information before the action was completed.

A new savings clause (subdivision (f)) states that the protections, prohibitions, and remedies in this section are in addition to and do not diminish any other protections under local, state, or federal law. This prevents the bill from being interpreted as a ceiling on workers' rights.

A new standalone prohibition (subdivision (b)) makes it unlawful for any employer or person to engage in conduct related to a person's actual or perceived immigration status that would dissuade a reasonable person from exercising legal rights under local, state, or federal law applicable to employees. Unlike the retaliation provision, this does not require proof of retaliatory intent - it is triggered by the dissuasive effect of the conduct itself.

Civil penalty liability (up to $10,000 per violation) now applies to 'an employer or other person' and is assessed per 'employee or person,' extending enforcement beyond just employers to any individual or entity that engages in prohibited conduct.

The 90-day rebuttable presumption of retaliation now applies to any violation of the section (not just unfair immigration-related practices) and references the expanded scope of protected rights under local, state, or federal law.

The definition of 'to coerce' has been removed entirely. The old version had a separate prohibition against coercion and defined the term; the new version replaces this with the broader standalone dissuasive-conduct prohibition in subdivision (b).

The definition of 'unfair immigration-related practice' now applies only to conduct undertaken for retaliatory purposes, removing the reference to coercive purposes. This reflects the restructuring where coercion-like conduct is handled by the new standalone provision instead.

A new Section 1 with legislative findings and declarations was added, stating that employers exploit fear of immigration enforcement to deter immigrant workers from reporting violations, and that intimidating conduct to prevent workers from asserting rights is contrary to California public policy.

Section 1019(a) was expanded from prohibiting unfair immigration-related practices done for the purpose of retaliating against a person for exercising a right, to also prohibit such practices done for the purpose of preventing any person from exercising a right. This shifts coverage from after-the-fact retaliation to include preemptive deterrence.

Assembly Members Lee and Ortega were added as coauthors of the bill.

A new subparagraph (E) was added to the definition of 'unfair immigration-related practice,' creating a catch-all that covers any conduct related to a person's real or perceived immigration status that would dissuade a reasonable person from engaging in legally protected conduct under local, state, or federal law, or induce them to engage in conduct they have a legal right to abstain from.