Immigrant Worker Protection Act: WA Employers Must Notify Workers of Federal Document Inspections

The Immigrant Worker Protection Act requires employers to post a notice and contact each employee within five business days after a federal agency launches an inspection of the employer's I-9 records. The law is aimed at increasing transparency for immigrant workers and is intended to afford time for workers to update paperwork or consider possible outcomes. Noncompliance can result in damages of at least 40 times the state minimum wage.

What Type of Investigation Triggers the Law?

Employers use the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and work authorization documents to verify employees' identity and work authorization.

The law addresses the disruptive nature of workplace raids. But it only focuses on "I-9 inspections," which are not done through a raid by Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE). Instead, an I-9 audit is an procedure initiated by a letter called a Notice of Inspection, delivered by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

• The Notice of Inspection letter requires the employer to give all I-9s and supporting document copies saved with the I-9 (passport, green card, work authorization card, driver license, etc.) to HSI.
• The Notice is limited to a specific employing entity at a specific location.
• That employer must deliver the I-9s and supporting documents to HSI within three business days. The Notice of Inspection letter directs the employer not to make changes to the I-9 records after the date of the letter.
• HSI then will review the I-9s and supporting documents.
• HSI will notify the employer of deficiencies and whether there are any curable paperwork violations, and whether any supporting documents are questionable or invalid.
• Having uncurable paperwork violations or employing unauthorized workers results in HSI issuing penalties.

HSI review can take weeks, months, or even a year or more to send the results notifying the employer of the deficiencies and penalties.

To minimize the potential for penalties, employers should consider doing an internal audit before a federal I-9 inspection. Using the federal E-Verify system to confirm work authorization also can reduce penalties. In some states E-Verify is mandatory, but in Washington, its use is voluntary.

Key Requirements and Risks

1. Notice Requirements

• Notice at the Outset of the Inspection

  Employers must act within five business days after HSI issues the Notice of Inspection:

• Post a poster about the inspection for employees to see in a format recommended from a model developed by the attorney general, in English and the five most common languages in Washington.
• Notify employees within five business days after receipt of the I-9 inspection notice:
• Transmit to employees the Notice of Inspection, through at least one of these methods:
• Hand delivery
• Mail with proof of delivery
• Email with proof of transmission
• Text message with proof of transmission
• Provide information about worker rights and available resources, to be made available by the attorney general.

The law also requires providing details about the inspection (agency, scope, purpose), but that likely can be satisfied by providing a copy of Notice of Inspection, which contains all the required information.

Employers should take care not to broadcast the notification beyond those employees within the specific employer entity at the location related to the I-9 inspection, and avoid unnecessarily expanding to other division, branches, subsidiaries, affiliates, or business units.

Significantly, the deadline for notice to employees is five days, while there is three-day requirement to hand over the I-9 records to HSI. That means that the employer likely will be notifying employees after they already handed over the I-9 records to the federal government.

• Notice After Results

Then, within five business days after receiving inspection results, employers must take additional steps:

• Notify each affected employee, individually, with other employees' information redacted.
• Explain deficiencies and the time period to cure.
• Offer a meeting (with the right to representation).
• Provide information, again, about worker rights and available resources, to be made available by the attorney general.

2. Restriction of Interference With Workers' Rights

The law restricts employers from interfering with, restraining, or denying workers' rights or taking adverse action because of the exercise of rights under this law.

3. Enforcement and Litigation Exposure

The law creates a dual enforcement structure, with attorneys' fees recoverable:

• The attorney general can investigate and bring enforcement actions.
• The penalty is $500 for "each instance" where the employer failed to provide a notice, and double if the violation was willful. "Instance" is not defined, but presumably would occur, at a minimum, for each employee who was not notified.
• The penalty may be waived or reduced if the violation was inadvertent and did not result in actual harm, provided the employer made prompt and good-faith efforts to correct the violation.
• Workers, former workers, anyone injured, or an "organization whose membership includes any such person" can file private lawsuits "to enjoin further violations, recover damages, and seek any other equitable relief or appropriate remedy."
• If the court finds that an employer has violated this law, it shall award actual damages, or statutory damages equivalent to 40 times the hourly Washington state minimum wage (currently $17.13 x 40 = $635.20), whichever is greater.

How This Fits Into Washington's Broader Legal Landscape

This law builds on a growing framework of worker-protection statutes in Washington related to immigration:

• Keep Washington Working Act (2019): Limits state and local cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement and establishes model policies.
• Workplace Coercion Law (SB 5104): Prohibits employers from threatening to report immigration status to influence workplace disputes.
• Ban on face-concealing masks while interacting with the public (SB 5855): The law does not criminalize masking by police or ICE; instead, it permits anyone detained by a masked officer to sue the officer for monetary damages.

Together, these laws reflect a clear trend toward expanding worker protections and increasing compliance expectations for employers.

What Employers Should Do Now

The law creates practical challenges for employers—especially those with large, transient, or seasonal workforces—to comply with notification obligations. Employers should not wait to determine which method they would use to give the employees notice.

• Create a clear I-9 inspection response plan (roles, timelines, escalation, communication plan).
• Train HR and managers on notice rules and retaliation risks.
• Evaluate workforce tracking systems, especially for high-turnover environments.
• Conduct internal I-9 audit to assess compliance and cure all deficiencies possible.
• Engage counsel early when inspections arise.

Bottom Line

This law doesn't change the requirement to comply with federal immigration law—but it significantly raises the stakes for how employers handle the process.

The biggest risk is no longer just compliance—it's how you manage the response.

Now is the time to optimize your strategy with experienced immigration and employment law counsel. DWT offers fast and effective I-9 review with our propriety AI tool.

+++

Diane Butler is a partner, Scott Prange is counsel, and Rebecca Lynch and Lauren Nelson are associates in the employment, benefits & immigration group in the Seattle and Bellevue offices of DWT. For any questions or more information, reach out to the authors or another member of our employment, benefits & immigration team and sign up for our alerts.