New Washington Law Prohibits Workplace Coercion Against Immigrants—New Rules Signal Heightened Enforcement

A recent Washington law (Substitute Senate Bill 5104) strictly prohibits all employers from using an employee's real or perceived immigration status to threaten workers or deter protected workplace activities. The state just issued new rules, signaling likely heighted enforcement ahead. Employers should audit workplace practices and review employment policies now to comply with this new law and avoid potential government scrutiny, potential disputes, and costly fines.

About SSB 5104

The law prohibits employers from using an employee's (or a family member's) real or perceived immigration status to threaten workers or deter protected workplace activities. An example of potential workplace coercion might be a threat of reporting (or implied reporting of) an employee's immigration status to stop someone from filing a complaint about wage-and-hour concerns. It was effective on July 1, 2025.

The statute:

• Defines "coercion" as threats compelling an employee to give up legally protected rights;
• Defines "threat" broadly to include implicit or explicit communications related to immigration status; and
• Authorizes the Department of Labor and Industries (LNI) to investigate complaints, assess escalating civil penalties, and adopt implementing rules.

Under the nascent law, LNI is empowered to investigate employee complaints of alleged coercion with authority to issue civil penalties when violations are found, ranging from $1,000 (for first violation) up to $10,000 (for subsequent violations).

Key Takeaways from LNI Rulemaking

LNI's new rules, effective March 6, 2026, operationalize enforcement of the law and clarify what types of employer communications are threatening or coercive.

Specifically, the rules provide:

• Broad Scope of Prohibited Conduct: Employers are prohibited from implicit or explicit communications about the actual or perceived immigration status of an employee or an employee's family member when used to deter protected activity. This mirrors the statute's expansive definition of a "threat."
• Protected Activities Are Expansive: The rules tie protection to rights under Washington laws related to minimum wage, conditions of labor, discrimination, and wage payment laws. Communications that might previously have been viewed as peripheral now fall squarely within LNI's enforcement authority.
• Complaint Window and Enforcement Authority: The rules reiterate that employees may file complaints within 180 days of the alleged coercive act and that LNI will investigate. Importantly, consistent with the statute, LNI may also pursue coercion violations discovered during other investigations, even without a separate employee complaint.
• Enforcement Is Already Live: The rulemaking confirms that SSB 5104 has been enforceable since July 1, 2025, meaning employers may face penalties for conduct occurring before the rules' effective date.

Other Related Issues in Response to Federal Immigration Policy

Employers should be mindful that this new law is just one of the Washington legislature's responses to recent federal immigration policy. Currently, the Washington Legislature is considering (and the House has passed) the so-called "Immigrant Worker Protection Act" (House Bill 2105) that would effectively require employers to interfere with federal immigration enforcement and take an active role in shielding workers from such actions. Last year, the Legislature passed SHB 1875 to permit employees to use paid sick leave to prepare for or participate in a judicial or administrative immigration proceeding involving the employee or a family member.

Action Items

Employers should take several steps to ensure they comply with the new law.

• Manager and Supervisor Training Is Critical: Train all managers and supervisors to avoid inquiries into or comments about employees' or their family members' immigration status. The rules reinforce that even implicit references to immigration status can trigger liability. Managers must avoid reference to immigration status in workplace disputes, discipline, or performance conversations.
• Review Workplace Policies and Complaint and Investigation Responses: Review workplace policies and complaint-handling procedures to ensure no terms can be construed as immigration-related coercion. Consider centralizing workplace complaints; communications made during wage-and-hour and discrimination disputes present heightened risk. At all stages of a complaint or investigation, ensure employees are informed of anti-retaliation protections.

  Expect More LNI Scrutiny: Final rule adoption signals that LNI views immigration‑status coercion as a core enforcement priority.

Employers should closely monitor and stay abreast of these developments to ensure compliance moving forward and contact legal counsel with any questions.