E-Verify & I-9 News

[Editor’s Note: today’s post is brought to you by guest blogger Katie Nokes Minervino, Associate Attorney in the Immigration Group at Pierce Atwood LLP. Katie assists employers and employees in employment authorization needs and provides clients with support and guidance on employment verification requirements, best practices, and audit response.]

E-Verify is the federal government’s current foray into electronic verification of employment authorization of US workers that functions as a complement to— not a replacement for — the traditional paper-based Form I-9 employment verification system. Over the past few years, many employers have found themselves in a “sink or swim” situation as they have been forced into this otherwise optional program by laws mandating their use. Others have voluntarily enrolled in the program. The remaining majority are now finding themselves teetering at the edge wondering whether or not to take the plunge.

E-Verify: Who Should Jump Right In

Businesses required by law should enroll in E-Verify and structure their participation to comply with applicable laws and the terms of the program. Currently many employers are required by state or local law to enroll in E-Verify, and all signs indicate that this trend will continue. Certain federal contractors are also required to use E-Verify. Further, multi-state corporations may consider enrolling nationally to avoid facing the moving target of state-by-state compliance and the associated burden as new state laws are passed. Employers who have previously been the subject of an I-9 audit and related fines should also strongly consider enrolling in the program.

E-Verify: Who Should Stay on Shore

E-Verify use has its drawbacks. These include employer-borne costs of training personnel and allocating resources to correctly administer the program, the addition of an extra step in the hiring process, and the risk of a “false positive” for a new hire that may raise an unnecessary red flag that requires corrective action. For companies with limited HR resources or who would face significant burdens in regularly accessing the online program not required or otherwise inclined to enroll, the costs will not likely justify the benefits. Some employers simply do not want to participate in the “voluntary” program, and can elect this approach unless otherwise required to enroll.

E-Verify: Who Should Test the Waters

As the program is currently structured, employers have options in how they use E-Verify, including limiting use for new hires at only one (or a handful) of hiring sites. Enrolling in the program for use at a single hiring location, for example, does not trigger a nation-wide E-Verify use requirement for all hiring sites of a given company. While E-Verify is imperfect, the federal government has put significant resources into the program and more and more states are imposing E-Verify requirements. Odds are good that most employers will need to at least consider participation at some point in the future.

Enrolling in E-Verify on a limited basis is a good option for employers with the necessary resources to properly administer the program who may otherwise be on the fence. Choosing to participate at one hiring site provides an opportunity to gain familiarity with the program and complete the necessary training and registration on the employer’s own timeline. E-Verify experience may also provide a competitive edge when competing for business. Companies are increasingly adding employment verification compliance provisions to service contracts, which may include current (or perhaps future) E-Verify use. Putting “a toe in the water” provides companies negotiating such contracts an advantage over companies that are not familiar with or currently contemplating at least limited use of the program.

No matter their current E-Verify enrollment status, all US employers should continue to monitor E-Verify related developments to acquire a general understanding of program requirements and any pertinent compliance deadlines.

Disclaimer: The content of this website is for information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances, nor does it create attorney-client privilege. This blog 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.]

In a case where immigration law and labor law intersected, Pacific Steel Casting Company (Pacific Steel) reached a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning its obligations to bargain with the union about its implementation of E-Verify.

On February 23, 2011, Pacific Steel enrolled in E-Verify by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). However, in so doing, it did not notify the Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers International Union, Local No. 164B (Local 164B), which represented its 600 employees at its Berkley, California facility.

At approximately the same time, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) served a Notice of Inspection on Pacific Steel. As a result of the I-9 audit, ICE concluded about 200 employees did not have valid work authorizations; thus, Pacific Steel terminated these 200 employees in December 2011.

In May 2011, Local 164B made an information request to Pacific Steel asking whether it had enrolled in E-Verify . As the bargaining representative, it is entitled to request certain information which could impact the employees’ terms and conditions of employment. Pacific Steel confirmed its participation in E-Verify but initially claimed it was required to do so because Pacific Steel was a federal contractor. Later, Pacific Steel conceded it was not a federal contractor but planned to continue using E-Verify.

Thereafter, Local 164B filed a charge with the NLRB alleging Pacific Steel violated Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally implementing E-Verify without bargaining Local 164B. In the March 2012 settlement, Pacific Steel agreed to provide written notice to the DHS terminating their enrollment in E-Verify. Furthermore, it agreed to reinstate employees, with backpay, who were terminated as a result of implementation of E-Verify. However, this does not appear to cover the 200 employees terminated in 2011 as those were as a result of the ICE audit of current employees while implementation of E-Verify covered new employees hired after February 23, 2012. Also, if it is determined these employees did not possess proper work authorization, the employees could not reinstated under NLRB law or awarded backpay. See Mezonos Maven Bakery, 357 NLRB No. 147 (Aug. 9, 2011) citing the Supreme Court decision, Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002) – “awarding backpay to undocumented workers lies beyond the scope of [the Board’s] remedial authority”.

As one of the few immigration compliance attorneys who formerly worked as an attorney with the NLRB, I can tell you if Pacific Steel had in fact been a federal contractor and required to enroll in FAR E-Verify, this matter probably would have had a different result. Also, if Pacific Steel had offered to bargain with the union before implementation of E-Verify and reached an agreement to sign a MOU, it could have lawfully implemented E-Verify.

This is a reminder of how employers face obligations under multiple statutes in matters involving immigration compliance.

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 was written by our guest blogger Melinda McAfee, Esq., Vice President – Legal, Abercrombie & Fitch, Tracker I-9 client since 2010.]

Nothing tests your company’s best practices like an ICE audit. Any company that has been through a large scale ICE audit will come out of the experience with lessons learned. Converting these lessons learned into best practices can and will help you survive future ICE audits relatively unscathed. Below are a few of the “best practices” lessons learned that any large retailer or similar employer can benefit from.

Best Practice #1: Develop and Implement a Regular Audit Process
The most important lesson that any employer can learn from going through an ICE audit is the importance of a regular audit process for I-9 compliance. This is especially true with respect to electronic I-9s, which are susceptible to the vagaries of technology. The risk when errors occur is much higher with electronic I-9s where technological problems can affect hundreds or thousands of I-9s at once, and could subject a Company who has acted in good faith to disproportionate fines. Developing an audit program that regularly reviews both the behind the scenes working of your electronic I-9 system (i.e., database storage, stability and security) and the front end product (i.e., correct completion of the I-9) is essential.

Best Practice #2: Make it Fail Safe
There are numerous error types that are possible on an I-9 form, any one of which can result in a fine from an ICE audit. At a minimum, any electronic I-9 system must provide automatic error-checking. Ideally, the system should prevent I-9s from being submitted with invalid input or incomplete information. For example, your electronic I-9 software should prohibit the form from being submitted without all the required fields completed. Other error protections include prohibiting the entry of expired documents, date and number formatting checks to prevent typographical errors, and protections to prevent accidental over-documentation and subsequent accusations of discriminatory I-9 practices.

Best Practice #3: Keep it Simple
I-9 and E-Verify processing can be high risk, but is usually a low priority for retail managers, whose focus is, and should be, on running the business. Along with the fail safe protections discussed above, the electronic I-9 system and interface should be as simple to use as possible. Managers need to be able to do the following without becoming confused or distracted by too many extraneous features in your electronic I-9 system:

1. Create an I-9 record
2. See a list of every record in process, and
3. See the employees who need to be E-Verified.

Avoid putting extensive reporting and searching tools on your local interface. Make sure that the instructions and screens that local managers see are clear and concise, walking them step by step through the process. Save the bells and whistles for your Corporate Office HR professionals and auditors.

Best Practice #4: An Integrated Solution
If your Company uses an applicant tracking system (ATS), it is possible to integrate the electronic I-9 software with your ATS. This can provide another fail safe to ensure that I-9s are completed at or prior to the hire process, requiring the I-9 to be completed before the individual can hit the sales floor. For retailers with a large part-time workforce that may not work every day, this can ensure compliance with the mandatory I-9 completion time frame. Integrating the electronic I-9 system with the ATS also helps “Keep It Simple” because Section 1 of the I-9 can be pre-populated with information provided by the employee during the application process, requiring only the employee’s review, correction and signature.

Likewise, using Single Sign On simplifies the electronic I-9 system and makes security easier to control. Managers can sign on to the Point of Sale system and be authenticated at sign on, which will provide them access to the electronic I-9 system, ATS and the electronic hiring system. This prevents the manager from having to reauthenticate multiple times in order to process a new hire, complete an I-9 and initiate E-Verify.

Best Practice #5: Portable Authentication for Substitute Managers
Large retailers in cities with multiple stores often need to borrow or exchange managers from one worksite to another to cover vacations, sick days and turnover. This requires an I-9 system that is not only easy to use, but also enables portability of system access. Creating temporary access roles for a new user every time a manager goes to a new store creates a burden on IT staff, creates login and security complexities, and risks managers being unable to log into and use the system. By integrating your I-9 software with your other systems, the I-9 software can automatically permit access for managers to the specific stores at which they are scheduled to work, and then disable that access when they transfer to a different location.

Best Practice #6: Support Seasonal and Under-Age-18 Hiring
Retailers, food service and hospitality industries thrive on hiring seasonal, temporary and under-age-18 employees. The electronic I-9 system used by such employers must simplify the I-9 and E-Verify complexities inherent for these types of employees. For example, if an employee is working for three days or less, the three-day grace period to sign Section 2 does not apply and you cannot accept a receipt in lieu of an original Section 2 document. Your electronic I-9 system should automatically enforce compliance with these special rules.

By keeping these six best practices in mind, multi-worksite organizations in the retail or similar industries can help ensure the best compliance with I-9 and E-Verify and increase their chances of surviving an ICE audit with minimal impact to the business.

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:

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 video post is brought to you by guest blogger Katie Minervino, Associate Attorney in the Immigration Group at Pierce Atwood LLP. Katie assists employers and employees in employment authorization needs and provides clients with support and guidance on employment verification requirements, best practices, and audit response.]

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:

Although parts of a newly-passed immigration petition remain contested, the Fremont city council voted to implement the E-Verify portions of the ordinance, effective March 5, 2012, requiring businesses to use the federal E-Verify system. Businesses have a grace period of until May 4, 2012 to comply.

Fremont Ordinance 5165

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:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas announced the final expansion of E-Verify Self Check at a press conference in Orlando on Thursday, Feb. 9. The announcement marks the expansion of the program to all 50 states, including Washington, D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (Read the USCIS Press Release here).

Developed in response to a request by Congress to create a service through which U.S. workers could check their own employment eligibility status outside of the employer focused E-Verify process, Self Check can help take the mystery out of the E-Verify employment eligibility confirmation process. After the user enters a small amount of information, the Self Check service will check that information against various government databases to determine the user’s eligibility to work in the United States.  Self Check will then return one of three results: Work Authorization Confirmed, Possible Mismatch with SSA, or Possible Mismatch with Immigration Information. If any mismatches are found between the information provided to Self-Check and the governments records, the system provides instructions on what steps to take to try to resolve the issue.

Employers are warned not to use Self-Check to pre-screen the employment eligibility of new hires. If an employer or potential employer asks to see a Self-Check query to prove work authorization, individuals are instructed to notify the Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices at 800-255-7688. Also, a positive Self-Check result does not guarantee that individuals will pass through E-Verify without issue at a later date. Self Check has the potential to benefit employees and employers by reducing the number of data mismatches during the E-Verify process  and thereby decrease the amount of time spent resolving those mismatches.  The Self-Check tool is available at www.uscis.gov/selfcheck.

Self Check’s initial launch in March 2011 was limited to a number of participating states to ensure that USCIS could provide an accurate and efficient service. Last fall, USCIS added an additional 16 states and also offered a Spanish version of Self Check.

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:

Update! Failing to get enough WA House votes, Bill 2568, which would have curtailed government-mandated E-Verify, appears to have died.

A measure that would have stopped more cities and counties from mandating use of a federal work eligibility program failed to get votes in the Washington state House, despite backing from farmers and immigrant advocacy groups.

Known as E-Verify, the voluntary program has been adopted by 11 cities and counties for government contracts. The program checks a person’s eligibility to work in the country.

A proposed bill in the Washington State House of Representatives, House Bill 2568, would prohibit the state and municipalities from requiring that a private employer use the E-Verify program, unless required by the federal government.

E-Verify is the Employment Eligibility Verification program, a free electronic system provided through a partnership between the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration. E-Verify allows businesses to electronically check the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States.

Like several states, Washington has a number of cities and counties that have mandated the use of E-Verify for  certian businesses. These E-Verify-mandated municipalities currently include Centralia, Chehalis, Clark County, Kennewick, Lakewood, Lewis County, Napavine, Pierce County, City of Sumner, Washougal, and Whatcom County. If adopted, HB 2568 will override these policies, and in effect limit E-Verify participation in the state of Washington to a voluntary or federally mandated basis. The bill would prevent state and local governments from requiring employers to use E-Verify as a condition of receiving a contract, applying for or maintaining a business license, or as a penalty for violating licensing or similar laws. California and Illinois currently impose similar E-verify limits at the state level.

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 Katie Minervino, Associate Attorney in the Immigration Group at Pierce Atwood LLP. Katie assists employers and employees in employment authorization needs and provides clients with support and guidance on employment verification requirements, best practices, and audit response.]

1. Am I complying with applicable laws requiring E-Verify use?

E-Verify is an online service administered by the federal government that allows employers to run information about new hires through Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration databases to attempt to verify work authorization.

In the absence of comprehensive federal immigration reform, and particularly in the face of high levels of unemployment, states and local governments are stepping hard into the employment verification debate. A number of states, counties and municipalities have passed laws that mandate use of the otherwise voluntary E-Verify program.

E-Verify laws warrant a close and careful look by all employers to determine when, if and how E-Verify mandates may affect them. Employers already using E-Verify should confirm they are making any necessary updates to their program use to meet state requirements (for example, adding hiring sites in affected states, if they are currently only using E-Verify in other locations).

Currently only certain federal contractors are required to use E-Verify under federal law. More expansive legislation that would require E-Verify use by all employers has been introduced in both the House and the Senate, but such federal requirements are not currently in effect.

2. Does my company have a contract that includes an E-Verify provision?

Employers should be monitoring all federal contractors for an E-Verify clause. Additionally, state contractors are also increasingly required to use the program, and private employers are now including immigration compliance provisions to the terms of service contracts that include required use of E-Verify now or in the future. Employers should review all contracts for any language that may require their use of the program.

3. If my company will be required to use E-Verify, what steps should we be taking now to prepare?

Employers should note any upcoming deadlines for required use of E-Verify. A company facing an upcoming E-Verify requirement should familiarize itself with the E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding, notice and employer requirements of the program, and make internal decisions and designations about how the program will be administered and by whom. Before the internal start date of E-Verify use, a company should plan to train appropriate human resource professionals and update its employment verification compliance policy to reference and incorporate its use of E-Verify.

4. Should my company voluntarily enroll in E-Verify to avoid the burden of monitoring local and state developments?

As states and local governments continue to pass E-Verify laws, employers must closely and regularly monitor specific requirements where they do business. Multi-state employers may consider nation-wide voluntary participation in the program to avoid the burden of complying with varying state requirements, depending on the employer’s views relating to the program and ability to satisfy E-Verify requirements.

5. How well does my company currently comply with employment verification requirements?

Most companies are aware of the federal requirement that companies verify the employment authorization of new hires by completing Form I-9. Employers should evaluate current employment verification compliance practices and consider a self-audit to confirm the employer’s Form I-9s are properly prepared and retained.

E-Verify is a supplement to, not a replacement for, the current I-9 verification system. Employers currently enrolled in E-Verify must still fulfill all obligatory employment verification requirements under current federal law, such as completing and retaining Form I-9. Employers considering enrolling in E-Verify should confirm they are currently meeting all federal employment verification requirements before undertaking additional responsibilities and requirements relating to E-Verify.

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 Katie Minervino, Associate Attorney in the Immigration Group at Pierce Atwood LLP. Katie assists employers and employees in employment authorization needs and provides clients with support and guidance on employment verification requirements, best practices, and audit response.]

Georgia’s comprehensive immigration law requires that private employers enroll in E-Verify as a condition to obtaining or renewing a broad range of business licenses and other documentation required to operate a business or engage in a professional service.

While some provisions of the Georgia law took effect on July 1st, the E-Verify requirements are being phased in, with staggered E-Verify compliance dates based on the size of an employer. The initial phase-in for private employers started in the new year, with businesses employing more than 500 employees required to use E-Verify for new hires as of January 1, 2012. Businesses with less than 500 but more than 100 employees must start using E-Verify by July 1, 2012, and businesses with less than 99 but more than 11 workers must use the program by July 1, 2013. Businesses with 10 or less employees are exempt.

All employers must look closely at whether they have any employees performing services in Georgia that trigger a license requirement because if so, they may be caught in the cross-hairs of Georgia’s immigration enforcement efforts.

Counting your employees for purposes of compliance deadlines

To determine the number of its employees for E-Verify purposes under this law, a business must count its total number of employees working at least 35 hours a week as of January 1st of the year the E-Verify mandates for that employer kick in. The definition of “employee” in the Georgia law cross-references the Georgia tax code, and as it is currently written, does not specify that an employer need only count employees on a Georgia payroll. The law further contains no language limiting the employer’s required use of E-Verify to new hires within the state of Georgia, leaving the door open for an interpretation of the law with a far-reaching scope outside of the boundaries of Georgia for multi-state employers.

If an employer exclusively employs workers on a Georgia payroll, the analysis is simple and the employer should look to its number of full-time employees paid under its federal employer identification number to determine when the E-Verify requirement applies.

But my employee only works in Georgia – I’m not a Georgia-based business

If an employer has payroll employees in multiple states, including Georgia, the situation is a bit stickier. Such employers should determine, first, whether all these employers are connected to the same federal employer identification number (FEIN). If the employees are distributed among multiple FEINs (for example, in the case of a parent and subsidiary) and the total number on each FEIN is less than 500, the employer’s E-Verify requirements will be deferred in Georgia until at least July 2012.

If the employees are all paid under the same FEIN and number 500 or more, the recommended approach is for an employer to enroll in E-Verify for its Georgia hiring sites on or as soon after January 1st as possible, thus placing the employer in the strongest position to obtain the wide range of business and professional licensure in Georgia for which proof of E-Verify is required.

I’m not prepared to potentially “jump the gun” on an otherwise voluntary program.

A company applying to obtain or renew its Georgia business license or an employee obtaining a professional license in Georgia must present an affidavit attesting employer compliance with the E-Verify requirements of the Georgia immigration law. While Georgia has yet to release rules or provide any clarification on how employees should be counted under this law, the Georgia Department of Law released affidavits for employers to present when applying for licensure: one for claiming less than 11 employees, and thus exemption from the E-Verify requirements, and another for employers with 500 or more employees. The affidavit for employers with more than 500 employers (valid from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012), like the immigration law itself, does not specify that the total number of employees is restricted to Georgia. The affidavit also asks for an employer’s E-Verify identification number and the date that number was issued.

Employers not already in E-Verify with 500+ employees and a limited Georgia presence may be justifiably on the fence about whether they want to enroll in E-Verify under the earliest possible deadline. These employers should consider the cost to working out the wrinkles in a license renewal process for a professional who needs a Georgia license and is unable to provide the required compliance affidavit.

For private employers without federal contracts, E-Verify use is limited to new hires. If an employer hires no (or a minimal number of) employees in Georgia in 2012, actual use of the program will be minimal and the burden relatively low compared to the cost if Georgia takes a hard line issuing licenses and later releases rules specifying that employers must consider all US employees for E-Verify compliance and deadlines.

Further, employers have a range of options in using and administering E-Verify within their company and can obtain the E-Verify Identification Number required as a condition to obtaining licensure without triggering E-Verify obligations for any hiring sites outside of Georgia.

Employers can also choose to administer E-Verify use for Georgia hires at a location outside of Georgia, for example, an out-of-state corporate headquarters.

The Georgia E-Verify law exemplifies the challenges that state-specific E-Verify requirements impose on employers, requiring additional compliance obligations for private employers while lacking clarity on practical aspects of the law.

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: