On Friday, a California appeals court brought us one step closer to ensuring that the protection of our laws – including the constitutional right to a fair trial and an impartial jury – extends to everyone.

In a personal injury case involving a former factory worker who obtained a devastating lung disease after being exposed to a harmful chemical at work, the appeals court granted a new trial to Wilfredo Velasquez, whose immigration status the judge had revealed to the jury even though it was not relevant to his claims.

At trial the jury found the company negligent, but declined to award damages to Velasquez, suggesting it was prejudiced by information about his immigration status. In reversing the trial court, the appeals court acknowledged “the strong danger of prejudice attendant with the disclosure of a party’s status as an undocumented immigrant.”

The ACLU Foundation of Southern California, together with UC Hastings Appellate Project and the People for the American Way, filed an amicus brief in the case, Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc. dba Advanced Biotech.

U.S. law provides the same employment rights and protections to all workers, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, but vindicating these rights is often difficult or impossible for undocumented workers. Employers threaten to have them fired or deported if they complain or report workplace violations. Workers (rightfully) fear their immigration status could be discovered if they file a lawsuit. Judges and juries may be prejudiced against them.

Friday’s decision is an important victory, just as it is an important reminder that we must continue to press to make justice and the courts accessible to all.

We can start by working to ensure that existing laws designed to enable workers to come forward and report unlawful employment conditions are respected and enforced.

New California laws that took effect last year increase penalties for employers who threaten to have a worker deported for exercising their employment and labor rights. Employers who violate this law are not only liable for monetary damages, but their business licenses can be revoked and they can be held criminally liable for extortion.

Similarly, U visas provide an important protection for workers who are victims of workplace crimes, including retaliatory threats of deportation. But due to misunderstandings, lack of training and prejudice, dozens of law enforcement agencies across the state refuse to sign the law enforcement certification that is a prerequisite to apply for a U visa, leaving workers in these areas unprotected and thus often unable to pursue claims against retaliatory employers.

We need to do more to educate employers, workers and law enforcement about these laws and ensure that they provide meaningful protection and enable immigrant workers to come forward. By closing the gap between what the law says and what the reality is for immigrant workers, we will raise the playing field and working conditions for everyone.

Jennie Pasquarella is staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. Follow ACLU_SoCal.
 

By Georgeanne M. Usova

Watching Congress' actions toward women last week might leave you confused about what year it is. Instead of advancing a single policy designed to help women, the U.S. House of Representatives has chosen to attack women's health any way it can.

Even after House leadership was forced to abandon plans for a vote on a nationwide abortion ban bill, because it was so extreme that women in the GOP caucus rejected it, the House didn't stop there. Instead, it quickly swapped out one bad bill for another and passed a harmful ban on abortion coverage. This bill would eliminate health insurance coverage for abortion for millions of women, effectively robbing them of the ability to access the care they need.

Medical experts immediately condemned the House leadership for substituting politics for science and jeopardizing women's health. "All women should have access to the medical services they need – including reproductive care – regardless of the ability to pay," said Dr. Hal C. Lawrence, executive vice president and CEO of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "Medical care must be guided by sound science and by the patient's individual needs, not by legislative mandates or financial concerns."

Yet it's clear that for far too many legislators restricting women's access to safe, legal abortion is their top priority. So here's the big question: Why are some politicians so intent on passing them? The answer couldn't be any clearer – these politicians want to get one step closer to banning all abortion, and they will stop at nothing to do just that.

In just a few weeks, the new Congress has already introduced a slew of bills designed to restrict a woman's access to abortion. Among these is a bill that would block funding to organizations that provide crucial reproductive health care to low-income women, like Planned Parenthood. This also includes a bill that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide an abortion to a woman experiencing a serious pregnancy complication and a bill that would target abortion providers with unnecessary and burdensome requirements like those that have decimated access to abortion in Texas.

In short, Congress is committed to turning back the clock for women by introducing more and more hurdles to safe and legal abortion access. This is ideology run amok, as Americans of all parties agree that this is the wrong way for their elected officials to spend their time.

Luckily some members of Congress are listening. The Women's Health Protection Act was reintroduced last week in both the House and Senate. That bill would ensure that a woman's access to safe, legal abortion does not depend on her zip code. Both chambers honored last week's 42nd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's historic decision inRoe v. Wade with a resolution in support of legislation that allows women to plan their families and futures by expanding access to comprehensive reproductive health care.

Get involved

Protect women's reproductive decisions. Act now »

Extremists in Congress have sent a clear signal that they won't let up on attempting to restrict women's rights any time soon. They have already said that they still intend to bring up a 20 week ban for a vote soon, even though it's clear that interfering with women's personal medical decisions is a failing agenda.

We can't let this Congress send extreme anti-women's health bills to the president's desk. If you agree, tell Congress to stand against extreme attempts to restrict women's reproductive rights!

Georgeanne M. Usova works at the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. Follow ACLU_SoCal.