Escondido Disposal, Inc., a refuse and recycle company and an E-Verify participant,  recently had to fire approximately 55 of its 200 employee workforce following an ICE audit when it was revealed that their documents were fraudulent.  The employer was not fined because ICE investigators found that the employer was examining the documentation to the best of their ability and knowledge.  This is noteworthy to emphasize.

Jeff Ritchie, VP of Escondido Disposal, said he was shocked to learn last month that 1/4 of his workforce lacked valid identity and employment authorization documents.  “We’re as vigilant as possible,” said Ritchie, noting that many of the employees were hired before the implementation of E-Verify.  “A big drawback of E-Verify is that it doesn’t go back and check existing employees,” said Mayor Sam Abed.  This is exactly the reason why employers must be proactive and have their I-9 records audited and train their staff, and then select a future date, and start fresh,  to go “electronic” with an I-9 program or E-Verify.

We note that the City of Escondido created a partnership with ICE in May 2010 in which ICE agents assist patrol and police officers in identifying illegal immigrants charged with crimes and consequently, Escondido-based companies appear to be more likely targets for audits.  ICE officials continue to state that they select businesses for audits based up0n tips and the type of business, with companies that affect “critical infrastructure and key resources” more likely to be audited.

For more on this story.

We have heard similar stories such as this over the last few years.  The charges against Taqueria El Balazo stem from a 2008 incident in which U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)  agents raided 11 El Balazo restaurants and arrested 63 undocumented workers, drawing the ire of immigration advocates across the Bay Area.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, they later re-hired at least 10 of the illegal employees after receiving written notification from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security investigators informing them of the employees’ identities. BIG mistake!

Proprietors of the restaurant chain behind Haight Street’s popular Taqueria El Balazo pleaded guilty to a series of violations surrounding immigration, social security, and tax evasion practices.  The owners  told the court they under-reported employee wages to the payroll company; they admitted that, based upon their actions, the amount of employment taxes paid to the Internal Revenue Service were understated, and admitted to hiring employees they knew were not legally allowed to work in this country. According to the plea agreement, between August 2007 and August 2008, they employed more than 100 illegal aliens.

Owners, Marino and Nicole Sandoval. are scheduled to be sentenced December 14^th and could face up to 20 years in prison and a half a million dollars in fines, according to San Ramon Express News. Sandoval’s brother, Francisco Sandoval, who owns and operates the restaurant chain with the couple, pleaded guilty to tax charges last August.

Taqueria El Balazo currently operates nine restaurants throughout the Bay Area in addition to its Haight Street outpost.

For more on this story:  http://www.sanramonexpress.com/news/show_story.php?id=4368

What do restaurant owners need to consider:

• Are you training your employees who are charged with employment eligibility verification?  How thorough are you when it comes to the I-9 process of employment verification?  It’s time to get serious about this.
• Have you been proactive and called for a Form I-9 Audit by a qualified and experienced immigration firm that specializes in this practice area?  We strongly recommend you consider this.
• Are you screening, coaching, training and counseling your employees to ensure compliance with immigration laws?

This is very serious business for all employers and is the major enforcement tool for the economic and political climate we are in at the present time.  The goal on both the state and federal level is to punish egregious employers and convince farmers, restaurant owners, clothing manufacturers, meatpackers and other employers to change their behavior.

Plain and simple, the national debate is heating up over mandatory E-Verify.  Some members of Congress seem intent on pushing the issue without taking into account the harm they will cause for American businesses and workers.  Now is the time to get your house, so to speak, in order.

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 southern Arizona tomato grower has pled guilty and was sentenced for knowingly hiring and employing illegal immigrants from Mexico, despite the company’s knowledge that these employees were unauthorized to work in the U.S.

Kenneth Ward, HR Director, pled guilty to similar federal charges in 2007 and is awaiting sentencing. In his guilty plea, he alleged that four top company officials, whom he didn’t name, knew of the illegal hiring and that the number of employees illegally hired was more than 1,000.

Eurofresh’s CEO, Johan van den Berg, denied all those allegations in response to questions  on 8/26/11 and said that Ward was fired more than four years ago after the company learned he had been bringing in illegal immigrant employees without higher officials’ knowledge.

The plea agreement said that payment is to compensate for the money Eurofresh earned from the hiring of 17 illegal immigrants from Mexico over the last decade for supervisory jobs. Eurofresh does not agree that the $600,000 is an amount directly related to the violations. Rather, it is a negotiated amount between Eurofresh and the Justice Department. The company will also be required to remain on probation for five years until the judgment is satisfied in full.

Since the illegal hiring was discovered, Eurofresh has implemented tight systems and regular audits to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining jobs there and is an E-Verify user.

For more on this story.

The highest civil penalty paid through settlement since the enactment of the INA anti-discrimination provisions in 1986 was assessed today against Farmland Foods in the amount of $290,400.

This is a very strong reminder that any request for specific documentation is unlawful if it is made for the purpose or with the intent of discriminating against an individual on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. Employers, however, who make such requests to clarify ambiguity or conflicts in the employee’s presented documents should not be held liable for document abuse.  The employer’s discrimination must be knowing and intentional.

An employer SHOULD NOT:

1. Set different employment eligibility verification standards, or require that different documents be presented by employees, because of national origin and citizenship status.  For example, employers cannot demand that non-U.S. citizens present DHS-issued documents.  Each employee must be allowed to choose the documents that s/he presents from the list of acceptable Form I-9 documents. For example, both citizens and work authorized aliens may produce a driver’s license (List B) and an unrestricted Social Security card (List C) to establish identity and employment eligibility.

2. Request to see employment eligibility verification documents before hire and completion of the Form I-9 because the employee looks or sounds “foreign” or because someone states that s/he is not a U.S. citizen.

3. Refuse to accept a document, or refuse to hire an individual, because a document has a future expiration date.

4. Request during reverification that an employee present a new unexpired employment authorization document (EAD) if s/he presented an EAD during initial verification. For re-verification each employee must be free to choose to present any document either from List A or from List C. Refugees and asylees may possess EADs, but they are authorized to work based by virtue of their immigration status and may present other documents that prove work authorization from List A or List C to show on re-verification, such as an unrestricted Social Security card.

5. Limit jobs to U.S. citizens unless U.S. citizenship is required for the specific position by law, regulation, executive order, or federal, state, or local government contract. On an individual basis, an employer may legally prefer a U.S. citizen or national over an equally qualified alien to fill a specific position, but the employer may not adopt a blanket policy of always preferring citizens over non-citizens.

6. Refuse to accept documents during the employment eligibility verification procedure that are acceptable documents under the law, that relate to the individual, and that appear on their face to be genuine (also called “document abuse”). An employer cannot be held liable for document abuse unless the employer’s refusal to honor documents is made for the purpose or with the intent of discriminating against an individual on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. For example, an employer should not be held liable if it refuses to honor documents that conflict with statements made by the employee.

7. Engage in intimidation, threats, coercion, or retaliation, including discharge, against an employee who exercises his/her rights under IRCA’s anti-discrimination provision. This protection extends not only to an employee who is the target of discrimination, but also to an employee who may speak up in support of the targeted employee.

Should you have any questions concerning this “balancing act”, please do not hesitate to contact our office for more information.

Immigration Solutions August 2011 newsletter is now available, full of updates and information that you will find extremely useful.  This month we take a look at:

Thus far in 2011, ten states have enacted legislation with E-Verify provisions – Alabama, Florida (executive order), Georgia, Indiana,  Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia. Eighteen states now have an E-Verify requirement for public and/or private employers –  fifteen through legislation and three through  executive orders.  (In 2011, Rhode Island rescinded its 2008 executive order requiring state agencies and contractors to use E-Verify.) One state, Illinois, enacted legislation to limit the use of E-Verify until the database accuracy is improved and also created privacy and anti-discrimination protections. At least two states, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, encouraged its use through providing a safe harbor from state penalties for employers enrolled in E-Verify.

States Requiring E-Verify

USCIS reports that as of December 11, 2010 more than 238,000 employers have registered with the program, with 16 million inquiries in FY2010. In FY2009, there were 8.7 million inquiries, in  FY 2008, 6.6 million, and 3.27 million in FY2007. There are an estimated 7 million employers in the United States and 60 million new hires per year. The 2007 Westat evaluation estimated that 4 percent of newly hired workers are verified using the system.

How well is E-Verify working? A December 2010 GAO report found that USCIS has improved the accuracy of E-Verify, immediately confirming 97.4 percent of 8.2 million new hires in 2009, up from 92 percent in 2007.   The report notes that E-Verify remains vulnerable to identity theft and employer fraud.  Name mismatches (multiple or hyphenated names) can still lead to tentative non-confirmation notices.  GAO recommends that USCIS disseminate information to employees to consistently record names and to develop procedures to help employees correct inaccurate information.  GAO also recommended that USCIS develop reliable cost estimates for E-Verify.  The 81-page report, “Employment Verification:  Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-Verify, but Significant Challenges Remain.”  View the report

E-Verify List of Guidelines for Employers: We’d like to review the E-Verify List of Guidelines for Employers.

Employers participating in E-Verify MUST:

• Follow E-Verify procedures for each newly hired employee while enrolled/participating in E-Verify.
• Notify each job applicant of E-Verify participation.
• Clearly display both the English and Spanish ‘Notice of E-Verify Participation’ and the ‘Right to Work’ posters.
• Complete Form I-9 for each newly hired employee before creating a case in E-Verify. Ensure that Form I-9 ‘List B’ identity documents have a photo (Section 2.1).
• Create a case for each newly hired employee no later than the third business day after he or she starts work for pay.
• Obtain a Social Security number (SSN) from each newly hired employee on Form I-9.
• Provide each employee the opportunity to contest a tentative non-confirmation (TNC).
• Allow each newly hired employee to start and continue working during the E-Verify verification process, even if he or she receives a TNC.
• Ensure that all personally identifiable information is safeguarded.

Employers participating in E-Verify MUST NOT:

• Use E-Verify to pre-screen an applicant for employment.
• Check the employment eligibility of an employee hired before the company signed the E-Verify MOU.
• Take any adverse action against an employee based upon a case result unless E-Verify issues a final non-confirmation.
• Specify or request which Form I-9 documentation a newly hired employee must use.
• Use E-Verify to discriminate against ANY job applicant or new hire on the basis of his or her national origin, citizenship or immigration status.
• Selectively verify the employment eligibility of a newly hired employee.
• Share any user ID and/or password

Upon enrollment, employers are required to clearly display both the English and Spanish ‘Notice of E-Verify Participation’ and ‘Right to Work’ posters.  These should be displayed in the most appropriate location for viewing by potential and current employees. Both notices are found in E-Verify after you log in under ‘View Essential Resources’ (Section 1.2). In addition, E-Verify recommends providing a copy of these posters with job application materials, either online or in hard copy.

We link to the Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel, for E-Verify Do’s and Don’ts for Employers.

Our recommendations:

We always recommend that you consult with an attorney skilled in employer compliance matters to assist you in the decision making process concerning enrollment in the system and developing a compliance plan so that you can monitor your state’s E-Verify requirements to remain compliant.  Each state now has its own E-Verify requirements and penalties and therefore it’s imperative that you seek expert legal advice.

Should you wish to discuss this article or would like to consult with our firm, please contact us and sign up to receive our I-9 and E-Verify news and updates.  View our services and solutions here.

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.

We have released our July InFOCUS newsletter containing informative I-9 and E-Verify news and updates.

If you’d like to become a client of our office, or to discuss how you can develop an I-9 compliant workforce, please contact us.