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.]

So you’ve taken the plunge and enrolled in E-Verify. Here are best practice tips to avoid the less-obvious pitfalls of E-Verify use.

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.]

On July 5, 2012, as expected, Governor Tom Corbett signed into law the Public Works Employment Verification Act, which will take effect January 1, 2013. The law which requires public works contractors and subcontractors, on construction projects where the estimated cost is at least $25,000, to use E-Verify to determine whether their employees are authorized to work in the United States.

The law broadly defines public work as “Construction, reconstruction, demolition, alteration and/or repair work other than maintenance work, done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of the funds of a public body where the estimated cost of the total project is in excess of $25,000).”

State public works contractors and subcontractors will also be required to sign a verification form acknowledging their enrollment in E-Verify and their responsibilities under the law. Willful violators who misrepresent themselves on the verification form may be subject to a civil fine of $250 and $1,000 per violation.

Failure to E-Verify employees will lead to the following penalties:

• First Offense: warning to violator and posting on Pennsylvania’s website;
• Second Offense: 30 day debarment from state public works contracts;
• Third Offense: 180 days or up to one year debarment from state public works contracts; and
• Willful violators may be debarred for up to three years.

The Department of General Services shall enforce this law. It shall investigate “any credible complaint of a violation of this law. Additionally, the Department shall conduct random audits of public works contractors and subcontractors.

The law includes an anti-retaliation/discrimination provision whereby it is unlawful to retaliate or discriminate against any employee who participates in an investigation or hearing or reports a complaint.

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.

[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.]

As discussed in our prior post about the Georgia E-Verify laws, the E-Verify requirements under the Georgia immigration law are staggered according to company size. On July 1st, Georgia employers with less than 500 but more than 100 employees must start using E-Verify.

Businesses with less than 99 but more than 11 workers have an additional year to comply with the E-Verify requirements (they must start by July 1, 2013). Businesses with 10 or less employees are exempt. The largest Georgia companies with 500 or more employees were required to begin their E-Verify use and compliance on January 1, 2012.

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.]

In a continuing trend of higher fines and forfeitures, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) announced ABC Professional Tree Services Inc. (ABC) had agreed to pay $2 million as forfeited funds to the Department of Homeland Security and adhere to revised immigration compliance procedures in return for the government agreeing not to criminally prosecute the company.

ABC is a Houston-based company that provides right of way vegetation management for electric utilities in more than a dozen states. ICE-HSI agents, in Birmingham, Alabama, began investigating ABC in early 2008 following complaints that a significant portion of the company’s employees were undocumented aliens. In March 2008, agents conducted traffic stops on ABC crews and detained employees, who were determined to be unlawfully present in the United States.

In June 2008, ICE-HSI agents reviewed the I-9 forms and supporting documentation for about 2,500 employees at ABC. The inspection revealed a significant number of employees had presented invalid personal identification documents, such as permanent resident cards, work authorization cards, and driver licenses, at the time of hire. As of the second quarter of 2009, about 30 % of the workforce was determined by ICE to be undocumented workers.

On March 4, 2010, ICE-HSI agents executed a search warrant at ABC’s Houston headquarters seizing employment and personnel records. Additionally, agents detained undocumented workers, who were on site at the headquarters. More undocumented ABC employees were detained during a traffic stop in Birmingham on that same day.

The government’s investigation revealed ABC had ignored federal law for years, by falsely attesting on I-9s that work authorization documents presented by new hires appeared genuine. In addition, for several years, ABC had received “no-match letters” from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and similar information from the company’s payroll processor, both of which indicated employee names and Social Security numbers did not match SSA records. However, the company failed to take corrective measures, resulting in the continued employment of the undocumented aliens.

ABC derived at least $2 million in revenue from the provision of services to electrical utilities with its undocumented workforce from 2006 through 2011. This figure represents the amount of money that ABC agreed to forfeit to the government.

Since September 2008, ABC has used E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of new hires. Beginning in the fall of 2008, the company also revised its immigration compliance procedures to include new policies concerning the proper completion, retention and auditing of I-9s and for responding to SSA no-match letters. Furthermore, ABC has terminated hundreds of undocumented workers.

Just in 2012, ICE-HSI has fined or agreed to forfeitures at the following companies or business executives in these amounts (only listing those of $100,000 or more): Atrium Companies – $2 million; Advanced Containment Systems Inc. (ACSI) – $2 million; HerbCo – $1 million; Sun Drywall and Stucco, Inc. – $225,000; two executives of LTCI Ltd. – $223,000; and J & J Industrial Supply – $150,000.

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 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:

[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:

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: