California health agency orders thousands of workers to re‑verify work eligibility with E‑Verify+, stirring privacy fears
The California Department of Public Health has instructed nearly 4,000 employees to re‑verify work eligibility through the federal E‑Verify+ system by April 10, 2026, prompting unions to warn of privacy, biometric data and enforcement risks.
- Scope: About 4,000 CDPH employees out of more than 4,500 full‑time staff have been asked to re‑verify. (Source: LAist)
- Reason: CDPH says the move protects federal funding and contract eligibility, including work linked to the CDC’s National Death Index. (Source: LAist)
- Concerns: Unions and staff cite privacy, data security and potential access by federal immigration authorities — especially given E‑Verify+’s biometric features. (Source: LAist)
Background
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued a human resources memo instructing selected staff to update their I‑9 information and submit to a re‑verification process tied to E‑Verify+. Officials say the steps are intended to ensure continued compliance with federal contracting rules and preserve funding streams. (Source: CalMatters; LAist)
How the CDPH directive would work
The directive requests that affected employees complete an updated I‑9 which is then checked through E‑Verify+ against federal databases managed by USCIS, the Social Security Administration and DHS. The upgraded system may include photo comparisons as part of identity verification. According to the memo, employees hired before November may be able to opt out, while those hired after November are required to use E‑Verify+. (Source: LAist)
Union and worker concerns
Unions have pushed back strongly, arguing the re‑verification is unnecessary and raises questions about data security, privacy and potential downstream consequences.
Anica Walls, SEIU Local 1000: “Unnecessary — it raises serious concerns for our members about privacy, data security.” (Source: LAist)
Jacqueline Tkac, California Association of Professional Scientists (UAW Local 1115): “E‑Verify+ is deeply integrated with DHS databases, including systems used by ICE,” creating “fear and uncertainty.” (Source: LAist)
An anonymous employee told reporters they feared submitting photos and personal data to a system that could be accessed by federal immigration authorities; staff also say opt‑out rules were not clearly communicated. (Source: LAist)
Privacy, data security and enforcement questions
Central to the dispute are three linked worries:
- Privacy: What personal data is collected and how is it protected?
- Data security: How long is biometric/identity information stored, and who can access it?
- Enforcement risk: Could data sharing with DHS/ICE lead to workplace immigration enforcement?
Advocates and some lawmakers note E‑Verify has produced false positives in the past, erroneously flagging lawful workers as ineligible — errors that can be difficult to resolve. (Source: LAist)
E‑Verify’s history and criticisms
E‑Verify began in the 1990s and, while long voluntary for many employers, federal contractors have faced stricter electronic verification requirements since 2009. States vary in their approaches — more than 20 require E‑Verify for certain contracts or licenses, and some states are expanding mandatory use. Critics say the system can misidentify authorized workers and that expanding biometric databases poses privacy risks. (Sources: LAist; CalMatters)
State response and legal context
The California Department of Human Resources noted agency‑level decisions determine E‑Verify use; CDPH did not provide comment by publication time. Reporting indicates no new state law in 2026 explicitly required this CDPH action — rather, federal contract terms can sometimes impose stricter verification for roles tied to certain federally funded programs. (Sources: LAist; CalMatters; Hunton)
Questions investigators are asking
- How many CDPH contracts explicitly require E‑Verify+ or similar re‑verification for existing staff? (Documented mention: CDC National Death Index; Source: LAist)
- What data will be stored, for how long, and who will have access? Workers and unions say those details are unclear. (Source: LAist)
- What legal and privacy protections exist for state employees whose data is uploaded to federal systems? Analysts say protections vary and are often not well‑publicized. (Source: CalMatters)
Implications for Sonoma, California
Economic impact: Sonoma County relies on public health staff and programs administered through state partners. Loss of federal funds tied to CDPH contracts could affect disease surveillance, lab support and outreach services. (Source: LAist)
Workforce and recruitment: Local employers may face hiring and retention challenges if prospective employees fear re‑verification mandates or data sharing with federal agencies — particularly scientists and specialists. (Source: LAist)
Political and social effects: Sonoma voters and local officials may demand transparency, audits or additional protections. Community trust in public health outreach could erode, affecting vaccination drives and clinic participation. (Sources: CalMatters; LAist)
Reporting sources and documents
This story is based on documents and reporting obtained by LAist (brief), LAist reporting and analysis from CalMatters. Additional context drew on employment‑law commentary from Hunton and healthcare legal guidance from CMA Docs.
Reporting note
Reporting by Times Media Service; this article preserves original facts, information and URLs cited in source documents shared with journalists in January 2026. Full source material and analysis cited include the links above. (Sources: LAist (brief); LAist; CalMatters; Hunton; CMA Docs.)
