E-Verify & I-9 News

ICE Director, John Morton

Tracker participated in the Second Annual Worksite Immigration Compliance Symposium which took place at Stanford Law School’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance on April 20^th, 2012. This Symposium featured many of the top authorities and influencers in Form I-9 worksite compliance, for an insightful day of panel discussions on best practices in compliance and auditing, enforcement and penalties, IMAGE participation, and more.

Today’s post is an introduction to as series of future articles that will share details from some of the key discussions in this Symposium. Here is a quick overview of the discussion points that we will cover in greater detail in the coming weeks:

Executive Ethical Compliance Training

Featuring Charles H. Kuck (Partner, Kuck Immigration Partners LLC) and Carl Hampe (Partner, Baker & McKenzie) and moderated by Charles M. Miller, (Principal, Miller Law Offices, and Co-author of Immigration Compliance Auditing for Lawyers), this panel addressed the keys to managing a successful and ethical compliance program, developing I-9 policies, manuals, and training, and private external auditing. Their discussion covered the things all I-9 administrators must know, using a complete compliance audit as a best practice to avoid liability exposure, the steps to follow for proper remediation, and the essentials of how to do a private audit.

Updates on the IMAGE Program

Sharon Mehlman (Partner, Larrabee, Mehlman, Albi and Coker, LLP) and Adam Wilson, Unit Chief, IMAGE, DHS, ICE) provided an update on the IMAGE program, the Penalty Assessment Policy, the Memorandum of Understanding, and details on the private audit and IMAGE membership. Moderated by S. Christopher Stowe, Jr. (Law Office of S. Christopher Stowe, Jr., Executive Director of Homeland Security Compliance Council and Co-author Immigration Compliance Auditing for Lawyers), this session clarified what an IMAGE audit looks like, leniency towards companies undergoing an IMAGE audit, and recommendations for conducting internal audits.

ICE Worksite Enforcement Policies & Programs

Rachel Ross (Section Chief of the Employer Compliance Inspection Center, Worksite Enforcement Unit Office of Investigations (ECIC), DHS, ICE) and Paul Virtue (Partner, Baker & McKenzie and former INS General Counsel) discussed the current basis for ICE policies. This session provided information on the INS Virtue Memorandum on Technical errors versus Substantive violations, planned changes to the ECIC, recommendations about Self Auditing procedures, and a discussion on the government’s position on electronic I-9 systems.

Immigration Compliance Requirements

Rachel Ross (ECIC) and Jennifer Sultan (Acting Special Policy Counsel, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices,  Department of Justice) discussed best practices for large corporations, including their biggest tips on how to avoid fines and discrimination charges, OSC guidance for acting on No Match letters, documentation best practices, and preventing issues that would appear to constitute “constructive knowledge” or a pattern of practice.

Keynote Speaker, ICE Director John Morton

John Morton (Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security) was on-hand as the luncheon’s keynote speaker. Director Morton gave a history and background of ICE. He expressed the importance of employers adhering to proper hiring practices (warning that ICE will conduct 3,000 I-9 inspections this year. He also explained the benefits of participating in the IMAGE program (ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers).

Look forward to more details

There was such a substantial windfall of information from this symposium, we look forward to sharing the insights from these discussions in our upcoming posts.

Disclaimer: The content of this post does not constitute direct legal advice and is designed for informational purposes only. Information provided through this website should never replace the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

To learn more about how I-9 Compliance Software can help you comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, click here.

Share this with your network:

[Editor’s Note: today’s post is brought to you by guest blogger Bruce Buchanan, an immigration attorney in the Nashville, TN office of Siskind Susser PC.]

Atrium Companies, the owner of Champion Windows and Advanced Containment Systems, agreed to settle a case with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) for $2 million as a result of a pattern and practice of hiring illegal aliens.

An I-9 audit, conducted by ICE – Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in February 2011, revealed 269 of Champion’s 451-person workforce consisted of undocumented aliens. Many employees’ I-9 documentation had numerous “egregiously suspect” errors, such as misspellings of agency names and/or containing the words “novelty item.” In November 2009, Thereafter, at the request of the government, all of the undocumented aliens were terminated from Champion by the end of April 2011.

The ICE HSI investigation also revealed that, since acquiring Champion, management at Atrium had become aware of the possibility of large numbers of undocumented aliens being employed at Champion’s Houston factory. A follow-up audit conducted by ICE HSI of Atrium Companies’ remaining 12 subsidiaries in May 2011 revealed that about 8.3 percent of the parent company’s 3,382 employees (excluding Champion employees) were undocumented aliens. All of these workers were terminated within a matter of weeks.

Atrium received multiple notices from the Social Security Administration (SSA) known as “no-match letters,” which indicated employee names and Social Security numbers did not match SSA records. The companies failed to take any corrective measures, resulting in the continued employment of the undocumented aliens.

The ICE announcement reported that since December 2010, Atrium Companies has revised its immigration compliance procedures to include new policies concerning the proper completion, retention and auditing of I-9 forms and for responding to SSA no match letters. Under the terms of the agreement, Atrium Companies must also hire a full-time chief compliance officer and continue to consult with immigration counsel in order to ensure the legality of its workforce.

Disclaimer: The content of this post does not constitute direct legal advice and is designed for informational purposes only. Information provided through this website should never replace the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

To learn more about how I-9 Compliance Software can help you comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, click here.

Share this with your network:

[Editor’s Note: today’s post is brought to you by guest blogger Bruce Buchanan, an immigration attorney in the Nashville, TN office of Siskind Susser PC.]

March was a busy month for the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, a division of the Department of Justice. It settled cases against Onward Healthcare, Indrescom Security Technology, and Ross Department Stores, who were each accused of immigration discrimination.

Onward Healthcare, a healthcare staffing company based in Connecticut, resolved allegations that the company posted discriminatory job advertisements on its home page and third party websites that limited its jobs to U.S. citizens. Over a one year period, thousands of Onward Healthcare’s job postings impermissibly limited applications to U.S. citizens, even though work-authorized immigrants, such as lawful permanent residents, asylees and refugees, should have been allowed to apply.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) generally prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of citizenship status unless required by law, regulation or government contract. It was determined Onward Healthcare had no legal basis for its stated citizenship preference. Under the settlement agreement, Onward Healthcare agreed to pay $100,000 in civil penalties, to change its internal policies and manuals to reflect the INA’s protections, and to be subject to reporting and compliance monitory requirements for a period of three years.

The Indrescom Security Technology and Ross Stores settlements involved situations where the employers demanded more documentary requirements for permanent residents than U.S. citizens. Specifically, Ross Stores refused to honor a work authorization document and demanded a permanent resident card while Indrescom refused to accept a valid driver’s license and Social Security card and demanded a permanent resident card.

Per the settlement agreement, Ross Stores agreed to reinstate the charging party and pay $6,384 in back pay plus interest to the charging party and $10,825 in civil penalties to the United States. Ross Stores also agrees to comply with the law, to train its human resources personnel about employers’ responsibilities to avoid discrimination in the employment eligibility verification process and to be subject to reporting and compliance monitory requirements for 18 months. Similarly, Indrescom agreed to pay $7,000 in back pay to the charging party, train its human resources personnel and be subject to reporting and compliance monitoring requirements for three years.

The lessons to be learned through these settlements are do not limit you applicant pool to only U.S. citizens unless you have a government contract or similar situation which requires only U.S. citizens and do not demand the employee’s permanent resident card if they have already provided you with sufficient documentation to establish work authorization.

Disclaimer: The content of this post does not constitute direct legal advice and is designed for informational purposes only. Information provided through this website should never replace the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

To learn more about how I-9 Compliance Software can help you comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, click here.

Share this with your network:

[Editor’s Note: today’s post is brought to you by guest blogger Bruce Buchanan, an immigration attorney in the Nashville, TN office of Siskind Susser PC.]

“ICE fine, right ahead!”

Recent decisions of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) continue to demonstrate Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and OCAHO strongly disagree on the appropriate level of penalties for small employers committing I-9 violations. Three recent OCAHO decisions demonstrate that ICE continues to seek large penalties against small employers committing numerous I-9 violations while OCAHO continues to use its discretion to reduce the penalties by 50% or more.

In the most recent OCAHO decision, United States v. Pegasus Restaurant, 10 OCAHO No. 1143 (2012), OCAHO reduced ICE’s proposed penalty of $131,554.50 to $49,427, a reduction of about 62%. In this matter, the restaurant failed to fill out any I-9′s for 134 hired employees over a three year period. Of the 134 employees, four were not authorized to work. ICE sought a penalty of $981.75 per violation. ICE did not seek to aggravate or mitigate the proposed penalty based upon the five designated factors – size of business, good faith, history of violations, seriousness of the violations, and presence of unauthorized employees.

OCAHO accepted the restaurant’s argument that the proposed penalties were disproportionate in light of the size and resources of the business. OCAHO cited precedent which states a penalty should be sufficiently meaningful to accomplish the purpose of deterring future violations without being “unduly punitive” in light of the respondent’s resources; thus, proportionality is the key. See United States v. Jonel, 8 OCAHO No. 1008 (1998), and United States v. Minaco Fashions, Inc., 3 OCAHO No. 587 (1993).

Therefore, OCAHO reduced 130 violations from $981.75 per violation to $350 each while refusing to reduce the penalty involving the four unauthorized employees. OCAHO found a penalty of $47,427 to be “sufficiently substantial” to have a significant deterrent effect going forward.

Similarly, in United States v. Ice Castles Daycare Too, Inc., 10 OCAHO No. 1142 (2011), OCAHO substantially reduced the employer’s penalty from $55,352 to $18,500. In Ice Castles Daycare, the evidence established over a three-year period of time the daycare center failed to prepare I-9s for 74 employees although it did examine appropriate documents to verify employment eligibility.

ICE sought a penalty of $748 for each of the 74 violations. This amount was a reduction of the baseline penalty of $935 per violation based on 5% mitigation for each of these factors – small size of business (it averaged 30 employees), good faith of employer, no unauthorized employees and no history of violations.

The daycare asserted a fine of $55,000 could put them out of business since its ordinary business income from 2006 to 2009 was $21,000, ($4,000), $5,500, and $38,000, respectively. Based upon Ice Castles Daycare’s ability to pay, its small size, and its efforts to verify employment authorization, OCAHO reduced the 74 violations to $250 for a total of $18,500. Thus, the penalties were reduced by about 66%.

Previously, in United States v. Snack Attack Deli, Inc., 10 OCAHO No. 1137 (2010) (Subway case), OCAHO reduced the restaurant’s penalty from $111,000 to $27,150, a reduction of about 75%. In doing so, OCAHO cited the company’s inability to pay and relatively small size.

Two recent decisions where the penalties were not reduced by over 50% are United States v. Alyn Industries, 10 OCAHO No. 1141 (2011), and United States v. Ketchihan Drywall Services, 10 OCAHO No. 1139 (2011). However, in both of these cases, the employers were not small employers and had the ability to pay substantial fines.

My advice to small employers, who are facing substantial ICE penalties and cannot afford to pay them, is to hire an immigration attorney with experience in ICE audits and litigation (hopefully you have already done so) and litigate your case before OCHAHO. If successful, the reduction in the penalty should be greater than the cost of legal fees for the litigation, especially since the litigation involves a motion for summary judgment based upon the record evidence, not a hearing with witnesses.

Disclaimer: The content of this post does not constitute direct legal advice and is designed for informational purposes only. Information provided through this website should never replace the need for involving informed counsel on your employment and immigration issues.

To learn more about how I-9 Compliance Software can help you comply with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements, click here.

Share this with your network: