California health agency orders nearly 4,000 staff to reconfirm work eligibility with E-Verify+; unions warn of privacy and federal overreach
Nearly 4,000 California Department of Public Health employees must reconfirm U.S. work eligibility through the federal E-Verify+ system by April 10, a step meant to protect federal funding that has prompted union objections over privacy and data security.
- Deadline and scope: Roughly 4,000 CDPH employees were told to complete E-Verify+ or standard E-Verify steps by April 10 to preserve federal contracts and funding (LAist).
- Union concerns: SEIU Local 1000 and CAPS‑UAW Local 1115 say E-Verify+ raises privacy, biometric and potential ICE-access issues.
- Opt-out distinctions: Employees hired before November may opt out of the E-Verify+ digital steps but still must complete standard verification; those hired after November must use E-Verify+ (LAist).
What CDPH is asking employees to do
CDPH’s human resources deputy director circulated a memo instructing current employees to reconfirm their eligibility to work in the U.S. via the federal E-Verify system — specifically a version the department calls E-Verify+. The memo warns that federal funders can require proof of eligibility as a condition of awards and contracts. (LAist)
How E-Verify and E-Verify+ work
E-Verify cross-checks I-9 employment eligibility forms against federal databases maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. E-Verify+ integrates the I-9 process with digital verification steps that may include photographic comparisons of identity documents, according to materials CDPH shared with staff. (LAist)
Who must comply, and who can opt out
The directive applies to close to 4,000 CDPH employees. CDPH distinguishes hires by date: employees hired before November may opt out of the E-Verify+ digital steps but must still complete standard E-Verify verification; employees hired after November must use E-Verify+. The memo does not appear to offer an extension for recent hires, prompting calls from staff for more time and clarity. (LAist)
Why the department says it is necessary
CDPH officials say reconfirmation is needed to meet federal contractor requirements and protect critical funding streams. The memo cited potential penalties, loss of funding, and disqualification from future contracts — including a contract with the CDC for the National Death Index — if verification steps are not completed. State HR Officer Nicole Skow said each agency decides whether to enroll in E-Verify and that the department is modernizing HR processes. (LAist)
Union and employee concerns
Labor leaders and employees argue the re-verification request goes beyond routine paperwork and raises substantial privacy and safety questions. SEIU Local 1000 called the move an “unnecessary re-verification” that creates “serious concerns for our members about privacy, data security.” (LAist)
“Not a neutral administrative tool” — Jacqueline Tkac, president of the California Association of Professional Scientists (CAPS‑UAW Local 1115), warned that E-Verify+ connects to DHS systems, may use biometrics, and could share data beyond HR needs, creating fear and uncertainty.
An anonymous employee told reporters they worry about uploading photos that might be shared with federal agencies and urged clearer opt-out information and more time. (LAist)
Broader criticisms of E-Verify
E-Verify is widely used but controversial. Critics point to errors — including false positives — that can incorrectly flag lawful workers. Lawmakers and advocates warn about identity-theft risks and system gaps that could deny work authorization to innocent people. Representative Jamie Raskin and others have warned a national mandate could affect hundreds of thousands of workers if error rates persist. (LAist)
E-Verify has been voluntary in much of the U.S., though mandatory for certain federal contractors and in some states. CDPH says its action is driven by federal contracting terms. (LAist)
Legal and regulatory context
California law generally offers strong worker protections and limits cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, but agencies still must meet federal contract conditions when receiving federal funds. The California Department of Industrial Relations provides a worker-rights notice about employment eligibility questions and warns employers not to re-verify eligibility when it is not required. (California DIR)
CDPH’s action comes amid heightened federal immigration enforcement, including increased I-9 audits and other ICE activity targeting workplaces; unions say the timing intensifies worker fears even when the stated purpose is preserving federal funding. (LAist)
State response and transparency questions
Beyond the memo and a general statement from state HR officials, CDPH has not answered detailed employee questions about data storage, who will access uploaded documents or photos, whether biometric data will be retained, or retention periods. Labor leaders want assurances that federal agencies will not use the verification process as a pretext for workplace enforcement. (LAist)
SEIU Local 1000 E-Verify concerns
SEIU Local 1000 argues many legally authorized workers will face duplicate checks and potentially intrusive data requests, increasing administrative burdens and privacy risks. The union has asked CDPH for a fuller legal rationale and to negotiate member protections. (LAist)
Implications for Huntington Beach, California
- Economic impact: Residents working for state public-health programs or local contractors tied to CDPH-funded projects could face short-term disruption if verification is delayed or employees leave over privacy concerns. Loss of federal funds would risk cuts to regional public-health services and affect local contractors and vendors. (LAist)
- Political consequences: Local officials and voters may split between prioritizing strict eligibility checks and defending civil liberties; the debate could center on state sovereignty, data privacy and protections for state workers. (LAist)
- Social effects: If Huntington Beach residents include CDPH staff or contract workers, fears about DHS/ICE data sharing could reduce morale, complicate recruitment, and disrupt outreach to communities with mixed immigration status. (LAist)
- Cultural relevance: The debate crosses values of law-and-order and privacy: supporters cite fiscal responsibility, while critics warn against treating lawfully employed residents as suspects. (LAist)
- Practical applications: Local clinics, contractors and county agencies working with CDPH-funded programs should review record requirements. Affected residents should ask HR for deadlines, opt-out options, what data will be collected and stored, and whether any federal presence will occur at worksites. The California DIR’s worker-rights notice is a basic resource. (California DIR)
What to watch next
Look for CDPH to publish specifics about data handling and access, for negotiations between unions and the department, and for federal statements clarifying E-Verify data use. Also watch whether other state agencies adopt similar measures or whether state lawmakers respond with guidance or legislation on employee privacy and verification procedures. (LAist; California DIR)
Sources and further reading
- Full reporting by LAist (includes reference to a CDPH memo obtained by CalMatters).
- California Department of Industrial Relations worker-rights notice: California DIR.
- Context on 2026 employment and health law changes: Hunton; CMAdocs.
Reporting for this article relied on LAist’s reporting (which referenced a CDPH memo obtained by CalMatters), statements from SEIU Local 1000 and CAPS‑UAW Local 1115, and California labor-rights materials.
