ICE May be Tipping Us Off to The Next Round of Immigration Raids in California

By Rebecca Schach

Just yesterday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Matthew Albence held a White House press briefing to explain how sanctuary policies threaten public safety. Acting Director Albence made his position clear – local jurisdictions across the U.S. that refuse to cooperate with ICE are complicit in the crimes committed by noncitizens who ICE could have arrested and deported with the assistance of local law enforcement. Acting Director Albence called on the public directly saying, “To the public…we ask you to hold your lawmakers accountable before you, or someone you love, is unnecessarily victimized by a criminal ICE could have removed from the country.” Statistics this week reveal a shift on ICE activity to focus on enforcement of people in “uncooperative” jurisdictions including California.

At the local level, ICE Field Office Director for Los Angeles David Marin mirrored Acting Director Albence and held a parallel press briefing to highlight the impact of sanctuary policies and call on the public to hold local lawmakers accountable. Field Office Director Marin stated firmly: “These non-cooperative jurisdictions – sanctuary policies – are protecting these criminal aliens.” He went on to highlight that the Los Angeles ICE Field Office apprehended more than 155 noncitizens just this week, 79 of whom had been in criminal custody and released.


The timing and messaging of parallel press briefings by ICE national Acting Director and Los Angeles Field Office Director suggest that ICE is taking concrete steps to focus its agency resources on “uncooperative” jurisdictions – the largest of which is California that passed its “Sanctuary State” law in 2017 through SB 54. As many employers are in peak harvesting season, they should expect increased enforcement activity. You can find our Cheat Sheet™ for employers “What to Do When ICE Shows Up" here. If you have any questions about what to do in the event of an ICE raid or developing a plan in the event of an ICE raid at your Company, contact the experts at The Saqui Law Group, a Division of Dowling Aaron Incorporated.

Engendered Differences Are Called Out

By Adrian Hoppes

AB 1607 was signed by Governor Newsom this month in an effort to protect small businesses from predatory lawsuits. California passed the Gender Tax Repeal Act in 1995 ("the Act"), which prohibits establishments from charging different prices based on a person’s gender (such as “Ladies get ½ off drinks, or Men get ½ off oil changes”). The Act does not prohibit all price differences, but rather, it prohibits charging genders different prices for services of a similar kind. The Act requires certain businesses (tailors, barbers, hair salons, dry cleaners) to post a notice of pricing for standard services. Violation of the posting requirement carries a civil penalty and each actual violation of the Act carries a minimum statutory penalty amount of $4,000 plus attorney’s fees. Small businesses who were unaware of the requirement have been subject to several frivolous lawsuits with plaintiff attorneys’ targeting small businesses who were required to defend the meritless claims or pay the extortion fee. Read an interesting article here on a couple who were prosecuted for this behavior. AB 1607 will now require a notice to be provided to businesses at the time of licensure so they are aware of the Act and can be educated to protect themselves. Below are some examples of frivolous litigation:

  • Male files suit against a matchmaking service that offered certain free membership perks to women in order to balance out male and female participation, despite the fact that he never joined as a member. Surrey v. TrueBEGINNINGS, 168 Cal.App.4th 414 (2008).
  • Male filed a class action lawsuit when a Wal-Mart provided a promotional “Ladies Day” discount for oil change, giving women a $4 discount over men. Plaintiff testified that he went to the store intentionally “fully expecting to be discriminated against” and did not ask for the discount.  Reese v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 73 Cal.App.4th 1225 (1999).
  • Male baseball game attendees file suit against the Angels and a sponsor of a Mother’s Day promotional event that gave a free tote bag to females over 18., Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 169 Cal.App.4th (2008).
  • Male files suit against a night club that charged higher admission fees for men than women. Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, 41 Cal.4th 160 (2007).  See also Koire v. Metro Car Wash et al, 40 Cal.3d 24 (1985).


If your business has any variance in pricing based on gender you may not be violating the law, per se, but your policy should be reviewed to ensure you are not making any missteps. Please contact the experts at The Saqui Law Group, a Division of Dowling Aaron Incorporated to help you maneuver this law.

Built For Employers