California public health agency orders thousands of workers into E-Verify+ program, sparking privacy fears
The California Department of Public Health has ordered nearly 4,000 employees to reconfirm eligibility through the federal E-Verify+ system by April 10, a move officials say is needed to protect federal funding but has sparked privacy fears.
- Scope: CDPH told close to 4,000 of its more than 4,500 full‑time staff to enroll in E-Verify+.
- Process: Employees may need to reconfirm Form I‑9 data and, in some cases, submit photos of ID documents.
- Deadline and rationale: A staged compliance schedule culminates on April 10; CDPH says the step protects federal funding tied to CDC and other contracts. See source.
- Concerns: Unions and employees warn of privacy, data‑security risks and deeper ties to DHS/ICE systems.
What CDPH’s directive requires
A memo from a CDPH human resources deputy director, obtained by reporters, lays out a staged compliance schedule that ends on April 10. Employees hired after a November policy change must use E‑Verify+ during onboarding; those hired before can limit some parts of E‑Verify+ but cannot avoid the broader verification process, according to the memo. Laist reporting documents the memo.
How E‑Verify+ works and privacy implications
E‑Verify+ links employee Form I‑9 entries to federal databases and checks them against the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security records. The system can also use enhanced verification methods, including photo comparisons of identity documents, which has alarmed some workers who worry about biometric checks and cross‑agency data sharing.
Why the department says it is necessary
CDPH told staff that certain federal contracts and grants — including work tied to the Centers for Disease Control and the National Death Index — require employment eligibility checks. The agency warned the memo could lead to penalties, lost funding or disqualification from future federal contracts if the workforce cannot be certified under federal contractor rules. Laist provides further details.
Department response and oversight questions
CDPH did not respond to reporters’ requests for comment. A state human resources official, Nicole Skow, told media that the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) does not oversee agency‑level E‑Verify use, complicating where authority for CDPH’s move resides.
Union and employee reaction
The directive alarmed union leaders and many state employees. SEIU Local 1000 called the order a “red flag,” raising “serious concerns about privacy, data security, and the unnecessary re‑verification of workers who are already legally employed.”
“This is deeply integrated with DHS databases, including systems used by ICE, and relies on biometrics and cross‑agency data sharing,” Jacqueline Tkac, president of the California Association of Professional Scientists (UAW Local 1115), said. She warned the policy could create fear among immigrant staff, hurt hiring and harm workplace trust.
An anonymous CDPH employee told reporters they were uneasy about submitting photographs of IDs and unclear rules about opting out, worrying that sensitive personal information could be exposed to federal databases. Reporting captures these voices.
Broader context: history and criticisms of E‑Verify
E‑Verify dates to the 1990s and matches I‑9 data against federal records. While participation remains voluntary for most employers, some federal contractors and state programs have required it for years. Over 20 states use E‑Verify in some form; Florida recently expanded requirements to all employers. Critics highlight false positives, identity‑matching errors and bureaucratic mistakes that can wrongly flag legally authorized workers. Lawmakers and civil liberties advocates, including Rep. Jamie Raskin (D‑Md.), have pointed to hundreds of thousands of errors nationwide that can mislabel legally working people.
Legal and policy landscape in California
CalHR oversees personnel policy for many agencies, but agency‑level decisions about systems like E‑Verify can be made independently, creating differing approaches across departments. No recent California law requires this specific step for all state agencies, and analysts tracking 2026 rules say no broad, direct statute explains CDPH’s action. See guidance on state employment rules: Are you ready? Five new California employment laws for 2026 and a physician‑focused guide: Understanding California’s new health laws — A 2026 guide for physicians.
Implications for the Imperial Valley, California
Economic impact: The Imperial Valley depends on state‑run health services and public health programs that employ local residents. If CDPH staff feel unsafe or leave due to E‑Verify+ concerns, clinics and public health units could face staffing shortages, straining services and potentially increasing costs.
Political consequences: The region may press state leaders for clarity if the directive worsens staffing or service delivery. County health departments and elected officials could seek exemptions or stronger privacy guarantees.
Social effects: Many families in the Imperial Valley are immigrant or mixed‑status; privacy concerns could chill interactions with public health programs (vaccinations, maternal care, contact tracing), undermining public health goals.
Local leaders are urged to request clear data‑security plans, written commitments about non‑sharing with ICE, and timelines to minimize disruption.
Transparency and data‑security questions
Employees and unions want clear answers on:
- Who will have access to their data;
- How long records (including photos) will be stored;
- How photo IDs will be handled and whether biometric checks will be retained; and
- Whether information could be shared with DHS in ways that trigger enforcement.
CDPH has not provided a public explanation addressing these specific data‑security concerns; journalists’ requests went unanswered. Laist reporting and related coverage document unanswered questions.
Sources and further reading
- Laist: “California state employees alarmed by demand to prove their citizenship”
- Hunton Andrews Kurth: “Are you ready? Five new California employment laws for 2026”
- CMA Docs: “Understanding California’s new health laws — A 2026 guide for physicians”
Reporting by Times Media Service staff in Sacramento; sources and documents obtained by local outlets and unions.
