Here is another example of one of the major blunders made by employers in 2011 which is to require specific work authorization documents (permanent resident cards or employment authorization card) of non-US citizen employees rather than permitting them to choose from the list of acceptable documents on the I-9 form.

The Justice Department announced today that it reached a settlement with BAE Systems Ship Repair Inc., a leading provider of ship repair services, to settle allegations that its subsidiary, BAE Systems Southeast Shipyards Alabama LLC, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by imposing unnecessary and additional document requirements on newly hired permanent residents (green-card holders) when establishing their eligibility to work in the USA by requiring them to present Permanent Resident Cards, a/k/a/ “green-cards,” as a condition of employment.

The investigation was initiated after BAE Southeast Alabama suspended a lawful permanent resident even though he had presented valid documents sufficient under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to establish his work authorization on three separate occasions.

BAE agreed to pay a fine of $53,900. The lawful permanent resident who was suspended was previously reinstated and fully compensated by BAE.  BAE agreed to ensure that the employment eligibility verification policies and procedures of all its subsidiaries comply with the law, to train its human resources personnel about employers’ responsibilities to avoid discrimination in the employment eligibility verification process, and to produce Forms I-9 for inspection for three years.  We cannot emphasize enough the importance of employers with subsidiary companies and multiple jobsite locations establishing written, uniform policies and procedures concerning employment eligibility compliance matters.  We also recommend that an I-9 Compliance Manager be appointed to oversee adherence to your compliance standard operating procedures for all subsidiary companies at all locations.

The INA requires employers to treat all authorized workers in the same manner during the employment eligibility verification process, regardless of their national origin or citizenship status.  Employees may choose which document(s) they want to present from the list of acceptable documents.  Employers must accept any document from List A or combination of documents (one from List B and one from List C) as long as it the documents reasonably appear on their face to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting them.  To act in any other manner can be an unfair immigration related employment practice in violation of the anti-discrimination provision of the INA.

We frequently are asked:  If an employee writes down an Alien Number or Admission Number when completing Section 1 of the I-9 form, may I ask to see a document with that number?  The answer to this, based upon the above, is “no”.  It is your responsibility to ensure that your employees fully complete Section 1; however, the employee is not required to present a specific document in order to complete this section.  When the employer completes Section 2, you may not ask to see a document with the employee’s Alien Number or Admission Number or otherwise specify which document(s) an employee may present.

Should you wish to communicate with our office regarding audits, training and policy development, please email us at info@immigrationcompliancegroup.com or call 562 612.3996.  Please sign up for our free news and visit our Blog and employer compliance resource center at:  www.I-9Audits.com

Ketchikan Drywall Services (KDS), a drywall and framing company in Washington, was found to have committed 225 separate I-9 violations for which they were fined  $173,250 ($770/each) discovered during an ICE I-9 audit.

ICE subpoenaed employees’ I-9s and supporting documentation dating back 3+ years.  KDS initially provided approximately 454 I-9 forms with ‘some’ supporting documentation.  More than a year later, KDS provided another 81 I-9 forms, totaling 535.

ICE issued a NOI (Notice of Intent) to fine 271 I-9 form violations for a fine of $286,000.  KDS disputed the fine, the case went before OCAHO (Office of the Chief Administrative Law Hearing Officer) who rigidly found no reason at the time to reduce the fine.

With over 250 violations, there were obviously a number of issues, such as:

1)      Were employees recalled from layoff or rehired?  The company hired a lot of seasonal employees.  If you are recalling from layoff, there is no need for a new I-9 form.  If you’re rehiring, then Section 3 needs to be filled out (if rehired within 3 years), or a new I-9 form.

2)      Whether supporting documentation was sufficient when the I-9 has none of the information filled out in Section 2?  The Administrative Law Judge stated that the supporting documentation could only be reviewed if there was human error in transcribing information onto the I-9 form.

3)      Whether late production of a permanent resident card alleviates a substantive violation for no status box being checked when the Section 1 was originally filled out; and whether certain recorded information in Section 1 can alleviate a substantive violation for failing to check a status box or more than one status box?  There were a number of issues with employees who failed to check a status box for citizen, permanent resident, or authorized to work or who failed to write in any information.  The fact that the employer later presented LPR cards, was of no value – it was still considered a substantive violation.  If the citizen box was checked with permanent resident or authorized to work, it was considered a substantive violation because the checked boxes are contrary to each other.

There were a number of other violations such as:

4)     Failure to sign the form

5)      Failure to list any or all the necessary information in List A, B or C

6)      Acceptance of improper documentation

Overall, there were 271 I-9 forms with substantive violations out of 535 presented I-9s –  50% of the I-9s, $110 to $935 per violation.  They got hit with a fine at the top of the range, $935.  ICE indicated that they could be fined $286K.

In the end, the ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) found that ICE proved 225 substantive violations in the 535 I-9 forms for a 42% violation rate, which equated to a base fine of $770 per I-9, or $173,250.

This case represents a prime example of what we see in our I-9 audit practice whether you have a diverse workforce or not, clerical errors and oversights play a huge part in the process and they equate to technical and substantive errors – an exceedingly expensive outcome for something that can be averted with the development of a compliance program that works for your business, with regular audits and training.

We link to the Final Decision and Order

Check out our group on LinkedIn, I-9 Smart Solutions for Employers.

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) reported that it had reached a settlement with Brand Energy and Infrastructure Services and its subsidiary, Industrial Services LLC (ISI) on July 21, 2011. The DOJ reports that Industrial Services engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination while completing Form I-9 on its non-citizen workers requiring specific employment documentation beyond what was required by law.

The investigation was prompted after a work-authorized immigrant lost his job when he could not comply with ISI’s request to provide specific employment documentation beyond what was required by law.   Further investigation revealed that ISI’s Prairieville, LA office required all newly hired non-U.S. citizens to present documents issued by the Department of Homeland Security upon hire.  The company did not require U.S. citizens to present any particular documents.

ISI has agreed to pay $43,560 in civil penalties and $7,200 in back pay, plus interest, to the injured party.   Brand and ISI have also agreed to monitoring provisions, as well as training for their human resources personnel.

What employers need to know: You just cannot presume that the employees charged with  managing your I-9 program are compliant with the law and adhering to anti-discrimination rules and regulations if you’re turning a blind eye to your compliance issues, the consequences of which today  are severe and expensive – not to mention the bad press that accompanies such an investigation. Employers must accept ANY acceptable document from List A that appears to be genuine and that relates to the worker, or a combination List B plus a List C document.  Additionally, employers are not to require more documentation than what is itemized on the List of Documents for Form I-9.

Let’s re-visit ICE’s list of best practices that include the following as a reminder to employers:

• Internal compliance & training program

• Polices/procedures safeguard against discrimination incl. training

• Require I-9 process only by those trained

• Secondary review for each I-9

• Annual I-9 audits by external auditing firm or trained person not involved in I-9 process

• Written I-9 policy

• Protocol to respond to tips/information/constructive knowledge

• Maintain copies of documents

• Participation in E-Verify/SSNVS

We are available  to assist you with your compliance  needs.  Please visit our Employer Resource Center and contact us should you wish to discuss our services and solutions.

Kinro Mfg. a subsidiary of Kinro Inc., which is wholly owned by White Plains, N.Y.-based Drew Industries Inc., has been fined a $25,000 civil penalty and $10,000 in back pay to the injured party for engaging in a pattern/practice of discrimination against work-authorized non-citizens in the employment eligibility verification process.  The company is a manufacturer of components for recreational vehicles and manufactured homes.

Kinro has also agreed to train its human resources personnel about employers’ responsibilities to avoid discrimination in the employment eligibility verification process, to produce Forms I-9 for inspection and to provide periodic reports to the DOJ for one year.

According to the department’s findings, the company subjected newly hired non-U.S. citizens to excessive demands for documents issued by the Department of Homeland Security in order to verify their employment eligibility, but did not require U.S. citizens to show any specific documentation . The charging party, a lawful permanent resident, filed his charge of discrimination after he was required to provide additional proof of his employment eligibility not required by law before he could begin work at the company.

View Press Release

A letter was shared today in the Immigration Daily newsletter, www.ilw.com pertaining to how long an employer should wait if an employee cannot resolve   an SSA No-Match issue.

This is a question commonly asked and, although the letter provides guidance relative to the 120 days provided by E-Verify to resolve tentative non-confirmations as representing a reasonable period of time, the last paragraph of the letter states:

“As stated above, OSC cannot comment on whether an employer should terminate an employee who is unable to resolve the no-match within the specified time period. To the extent however, that an employer has such a policy, OSC would advise the employer to treat all employees consistently, regardless of citizenship status or national origin.”

To view the letter.

We are dedicated to assisting our clients develop compliant workforces.  Contact Immigration Solutions us to discuss your compliance needs.  View our services and solutions here.

Here’s another sad story from the restaurant industry. Snack Attack Deli, d/b/a  a Subway Restaurant franchise in Fayetteville North Carolina, has been neglecting filling out I-9 Employment Eligibility forms for several years to the tune of 108 I-9 violations producing a serious fine of some $111,078, as reported by the Department of Justice, Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) on February 11, 2011.  The Judge considered the small size of the company, the number of employees and their payroll and reduced the penalty down to $27,000 which was still difficult for the small franchise to handle.

Here’s the back story: Snack Attack produced 11 incomplete I-9 forms for 108 employees, current and mostly past employees, following the receipt of an NOI requesting I-9 forms for current and past employees for years 2006 through 2009 from ICE in early 2009.  The ICE auditor provided the owner with a copy of a sample I-9 form along with a copy of the I-9 Employer Handbook and told one of Snack Attack’s employees that if new forms were prepared, they should not be back dated.  Section 2 of the 11 I-9 forms that were produced were not filled out at all, and 7 of the 11 forms had been back dated  – including one for the restaurant owner.  Amazing- go figure!

ICE then issued a Notice of Intent to Fine in July 2009 stating that Snack Attack committed 108 I-9 violations including improper completion of the 11 forms, failing to complete I-9 forms for 97 employees.  Each violation carried a penalty of $1,028.50 for a total of $111,078.

Snack Attack alleged that the back dating was not their fault because it occurred in section 1 and that the owner had sold the business to another person, although there was no evidence to support his claim and so the judge issued civil penalties in the case.

The Judge wrote that failure to prepare an I-9 form is amongst the most serious of paperwork violations, in addition to not filling out the employer attestation in section 2.

It should be stated that there was no evidence of unauthorized workers and the 97 employees for whom no I-9’s were filled out, remains unresolved.  ICE’s position was that Snack Attack’s practices could very easily lead to the hiring of unauthorized workers.

We cannot stress enough that employers must be proactive and generate an I-9 form for all their employees and should catch these serious violations right now, particularly if you are in an industry such as food service, manufacturing/distribution, the garment industry, construction or the hospitality industry that are making headlines every week and creating media nightmares for employers

We also learn with this ruling that although fines are calculated based on regulatory criteria, there is some hope of relief based on a company’s size and business volume.  The question is, could there have had a much happier ending if Snack Attack would have retained the services of a competent attorney with a specialty in employer compliance issues to represent them during the audit?  We say unequivocally, “yes!”

For more information on employer compliance issues, please visit our I-9 Resource Center.

Employers can no longer afford to think that because they don’t hire foreign nationals, they don’t have any I-9 issues or need to comply with I-9 immigration regulations. The I-9 form is required documentation for all US citizens and non-citizens …every single employee must fill out an I-9 Form.

In our employer compliance audit practice, we find that every employer has I-9 violations, from minor clerical errors and unintentional mistakes, to document discrimination issues due to lack of training on I-9 regulations and document requirements.

Immigration attorneys, HR professionals, auditing firms and other professionals, if skilled in the practice area of employer compliance audits, could qualify as a viable vendor in handling I-9 audits, training and policy development.

There are a lot of do and don’t lists, blog postings, podcasts, free seminars and more on this topic which is why you should most particularly pay close attention as to whether or not the provider has a broad understanding of employer immigration compliance law and policy.  Discuss with them their previous and current experience, can they answer your questions, what services do they provide, what solutions are they proposing to suit your specific needs, and what type of follow-up consultation do they provide post-I-9 project completion.

Immigration Solutions regularly represents clients from all industries in developing effective I-9 policies and compliance programs. We assist our clients proactively in establishing and maintaining effective corporate policies and procedures, before one of the five government agencies involved with enforcement knocks on your door.

The Department of Justice issued an excellent guide to employers (see below) today on the Do’s & Don’ts of name and social security “No Matches”:

DO:
1. Recognize that name/SSN no-matches can result because of simple administrative
errors.
2. Check the reported no-match information against your personnel records.
3. Inform the employee of the no-match notice.
4. Ask the employee to confirm his/her name/SSN reflected in your personnel records.
5. Advise the employee to contact the Social Security Administration (SSA) to correct
and/or update his or her SSA records.
6. Give the employee a reasonable period of time to address a reported no-match with
the local SSA office.
7. Follow the same procedures for all employees regardless of citizenship status or
national origin.
8. Periodically meet with or otherwise contact the employee to learn and document the
status of the employee’s efforts to address and resolve the no-match.
9. Submit any employer or employee corrections to the SSA.

DON’T:
1. Assume the no-match conveys information regarding the employee’s immigration
status or actual work authority.
2. Use the receipt of a no-match notice alone as a basis to terminate, suspend or take
other adverse action against the employee.
3. Attempt to immediately re-verify the employee’s employment eligibility by
requesting the completion of a new Form I-9 based solely on the no-match notice.
4. Follow different procedures for different classes of employees based on national
origin or citizenship status.
5. Require the employee to produce specific documents to address the no-match.
6. Ask the employee to provide a written report of SSA verification.

We link to SSA No Match FAQs

For more information on the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, feel free to call our office or contact the OSC through its employer telephone hotline or visit OSC’s Website:
Employers: 1-800-255-8155
Website: http://www.justice.gov/crt/osc/

Please visit our new employer I-9 resource center at:  www.I-9Audits.com

The Justice Department announced on November 10th that it has reached a settlement agreement with Hoover Inc., a leading manufacturer of vacuum and carpet cleaners with facilities in Ohio and Texas, to resolve allegations that Hoover engaged in a pattern or practice of employment discrimination by imposing unnecessary and discriminatory hurdles in the I-9 process upon lawful permanent residents.

According to the department’s findings, Hoover required all permanent residents who presented a permanent resident card (green card) for I-9 purposes to produce a new green card when theirs expired. In contrast, Hoover’s U.S. citizen workers were not required to present new documents. Like U.S. citizens, permanent residents are always work authorized, regardless of the expiration of their documentation. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits employers from treating permanent residents differently than U.S. citizens in the I-9 process.

Under the terms of the settlement, Hoover has agreed to pay $10,200 in civil penalties. Hoover will also train its human resources personnel about employers’ nondiscrimination responsibilities in the I-9 process, and it will provide periodic reports to the department for one year.  Here’s the Press Release

This is one of several recent settlements brought by the DOJ against employers that engage in document abuse.  This occurs when employers treat employees differently based on national origin or citizenship status during the I-9 process.

What does this ruling mean for employers?

Although some I-551 Permanent Resident Cards have an expiration date, employment authorization continues and there is no need to reverify this document upon expiration.  An expiration date on the Form I–551 reflects only that the card must be renewed, not that the bearer’s work authorization has expired,  8 C.F.R.§ 274a.12(a)(1). Further Question 39 on Pg. 36 of the M-274 Handbook states:  You may not re-verify an expired U.S. passport or passport card, an Alien Registration Receipt Card/Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551), or a List B document that has expired.

Here are some examples of prohibited practices that fall under document abuse:

1) Setting different employment eligibility verification standards or requiring different documents based on national origin or citizenship status. One example would be requiring non-U.S. citizens to present DHS-issued documents like “green cards”

2)  Requesting to see employment eligibility verification documents before hire and completion of the Form I-9 because an employee appears foreign or the employee indicates that he or she is not a U.S. citizen.

3)  Refusing to accept a document or hire an individual because an acceptable document has a future expiration date.

4)  Limiting jobs to U.S. citizens unless a job is limited to citizens by law.

5)  Asking to see a document with an employee’s alien or admission number when completing section 1 of Form I-9.

6)  Asking a lawful permanent resident to re-verify employment eligibility because the person’s “green card” has expired.

Should you have any questions, or know that your I-9’s have problems, be smart and proactive and contact an experienced professional in this field who knows the law and can assist you.

We have a terrific I-9 Resource Center for Employers and are available to design a cost-effective audit and training program to suit your particular needs.