The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on their citizenship or immigration status, or based on their national origin, in the Form I-9 process. It is important for employers to develop, implement and enforce anti-discrimination policies, practices and procedures, and to ensure that all employees conducting Form I-9 verification or E-Verify confirmation understand all program rules. Employers should also provide appropriate and adequate employee education on employer responsibilities and worker rights.

To prevent discrimination, employer’s should treat all people equally when

• announcing a job
• taking applications
• performing interviews
• making job offers
• verifying the individual’s authorization to work
• hiring the individual
• terminating the individual’s employment

Employers also must not retaliate against a person who             

•  files a charge of discrimination with OSC or EEOC
• participates in an investigation or prosecution of a discrimination complaint
• asserts his or her rights or the rights of another person under anti-discrimination laws

The Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) investigates charges of employment discrimination related to an individual’s citizenship or immigration status or national origin.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) also investigates employment discrimination based on national origin, in addition to other protected bases. OSC investigates national origin claims against employers with four to 14 employees, and EEOC investigates national origin claims against employers with 15 or more employees. 

There has been a high level of enforcement by OSC this year concerning the anti-discrimination provision, with three more cases recently publicized in the last month:

1. OSC settled with Texas-based Infinity Group who required non-citizens present specific DHS-issued documents such as green-cards or employment authorization to establish identity and employment authorization while similarly not requesting the same of US citizens.  They were fined $53,000, had to pay $35K in back pay to those who were damaged as a result of their practices.
2. OSC settled with PA-based Huber Nurseries for engaging in citizenship discrimination by preferring to hire temporary H-2A visa holders over Permanent Residents (green-card holders).  Huber has agreed to pay $2,250 in civil penalties to the USA and $59,617 in back pay to the six injured parties, who are former refugees; and
3. OSC settled with IBM for violating the anti-discrimination provision for placing online job postings for software developers with a preference for F-1 and H-1B visa holders.  IBM has agreed to pay $44,400 in civil penalties to the USA.

So, what’s an employer to do?

Employers must accept all documents that are indicated on the List of Acceptable Documents to complete the I-9 form as long as they appear reasonably genuine on their face and relate to the employee. For example, all individuals who possess a driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card may present those documents to satisfy Form I-9 requirements. Employers may not request or require potential employees to produce “green cards” or United States citizens who look or sound “foreign” to produce birth certificates. The employee chooses which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to present.  Employers must assure that those charged with the responsibility of I-9 management are trained on I-9 regulations and the anti-discrimination provision of the INA – and they must not          

• Demand that an employee show specific documents
• Ask to see employment authorization documents before an individual accepts a job offer
• Refuse to accept a document, or refuse to hire an individual, because a document will expire in the future
• Refuse to accept a receipt that is acceptable for Form I-9 purposes
• Demand a specific document when reverifying that an employee is authorized to work

We recommend that you take some time and read the OSC’s Guide to Fair Employment that can be accessed here, that contains some thought provoking What would you do? scenarios that start on page 6.

Should you have questions or require particular guidance on this topic, please feel free to contact our office.

By:  Timothy Sutton, Communications Editor

Shortly after ICE began their Form I-9 audit of the San Antonio based sushi chain, Sushi Zushi, an exodus of employees forced the company into a weeklong-statewide shutdown. After an internal announcement by Sushi Zushi management to employees of the routine audit, a wave of scared employees did not return to their jobs on Friday Morning.  A public statement was issued by Sushi Zushi’s public relations spokesperson; Judy McCarter detailing the company’s decision:

STATEMENT FROM SUSHI ZUSHI, Friday, July 27, 2012

Sushi Zushi has temporarily suspended its operations and closed its restaurants in San Antonio, Austin and the DFW Metroplex. We plan to resume operations as soon as possible.

The decision to close the restaurants was made at Sushi Zushi today by executive management due to an unanticipated internal reaction to news of a routine I-9 audit. Several vital employees have chosen not to report to work. This has affected our ability to provide our expected level of service to guests. CEO Alfonso Tomita is returning from travels outside the country.

Sushi Zushi’s policy is to comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations. And Sushi Zushi has made its best efforts to comply with I-9 requirements always done appropriate due diligence on all its staff. Sushi Zushi is working with legal counsel to respond to the government’s audit.

We wish to be clear – there was no raid by the government on our operations. Nor has any employee  been detained by the government or terminated by the company. Sushi Zushi is responding to a routine I-9 audit. We apologize in advance for the inconvenience and appreciate the patience of our loyal guests while we work through this issue.

Company management immediately posted want ad’s on Craigslist and Facebook. Their customers posted their concerns across social media, including accusations of mismanagement that surfaced on reddit.com. In the midst of this audit meltdown, an employee announced via facebook that he was promoted from delivery driver to sushi chef. With the company’s reputation spinning out of control, their facebook page had posts of former kitchen employees who remarked, “The food won’t be the same without us,” while other employees joked with friends that they had a week-off work to “fill out their I-9 forms.”

Before ICE issues a dollar of fines or fees, Sushi Zushi will suffer hundreds of thousands in loses and devastating harm to their reputation. Sushi Zushi employees fled because they were not educated on the differences between an I-9 audit and deportation raids. Clearly, today’s ICE audits are shaping up to be equally as effective in deterring unlawful employment as raids of the past. To prevent your company from becoming the next Sushi Zushi, contact our immigration professionals for their expert knowledge on Form I-9 compliance, and sign up to receive our information and visit our Employer Resource Center:  www.I-9Audits.com

This brochure outlines some excellent Do’s and Don’ts pertaining to how to interact with employees during an ICE audit; however, these suggestions additionally apply to all audit situations such as outside 3rd party audits by attorneys or compliance experts, as well as internal self-audits.

It is recommended that you have an established procedure for interacting with employees whose I-9 forms require correcting; i.e, how to inform them that you are seeking information from them, what to communicate to them, and how much time to allow them to respond.

Should you wish to discuss the particulars of your compliance program, please feel to contact our office for more information.

::::::::::::::::::

Leslie Davis is the Managing Director of Immigration Compliance Group and is an expert in employer compliance matters.  The firm also specializes in US and Canadian business immigration.

The Justice Department has reached a settlement agreement with University of California San Diego Medical Center for $115,000 (one of the higher civil penalties we’ve seen) for a complaint filed on Dec. 6, 2011, alleging that the medical center failed to comply with proper I-9 Form employment eligibility verification processes for non-citizens who are authorized to work in the United States.

Specifically, the DOJ’s complaint alleged that UCSD medical center engaged in a pattern of subjecting 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 the same of US citizens. The Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from placing unfair documentary burdens on work-authorized employees during the hiring and employment eligibility verification process based on their citizenship status or national origin. Clearly put, it is illegal to discriminate against work authorized individuals.  You simply cannot specify which documents are to be presented.  This is considered document abuse.

The medical center has taken appropriate action to ensure compliance with INA’s anti-discrimination provision and has received Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) training on the proper use of work authorization documents.  They have also agreed to work with the DOJ to ensure compliance with proper I-9 processes across all University of California campuses, medical centers and facilities.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the medical center agrees to implement new employment eligibility verification policies and procedures that treat all employees equally regardless of citizenship status. In addition, the medical center has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $115,000, conduct supplemental training of its human resources personnel on their responsibilities to avoid discrimination in the employment eligibility verification process and work with the department to ensure compliance with proper employment eligibility verification processes across all University of California campuses, medical centers and facilities.

Heightened Enforcement Continues

During the past few years, we have seen unprecedented enforcement and legislative activity relating to Form I-9 and E-Verify worksite compliance.  Since fiscal year 2009, ICE has audited more than 6,000 employers, debarred 441 companies and individuals, and imposed more than $76 million in financial sanctions.  We have also seen an unprecedented increase in the number of enforcement actions brought about by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for discrimination in the I-9 process.  The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has robustly prosecuted claims of discrimination in the I-9 process resulting in fines and penalties against employers, as well as back pay to injured parties.

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 are not training your employees, then you are turning a blind eye to establishing a compliant workforce, the consequences of which today are severe and expensive – not to mention the bad press that accompanies such an investigation.

Employers cannot request specific documents (such as a green card), reject documents that reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the employee presenting them, request that employees produce more documents than are required or treat groups of applicants differently when completing the I-9 form. You must examine 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, regardless of whether or not

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

• Use E-Verify,
• Use the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS) for wage reporting purposes
• Establish a written hiring and employment eligibility verification policy.
• Establish an internal compliance and training program related to the hiring and employment verification process
• Require the I-9 process to be conducted only by individuals who have received appropriate training and include a secondary review as part of each employee’s verification to minimize the potential for a single individual to subvert the process.
• Arrange for annual I-9 audits by an external auditing firm or a trained employee not otherwise involved in theI-9 process.
• Establish a protocol for responding to letters or other information received from federal and state government agencies indicating that there is a discrepancy between the agency’s information and the information provided by the employer, such as SSA “No-Match” letters
• Establish and maintain appropriate policies, practices and safeguards to ensure that authorized workers are not treated differently with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee or during the Form I-9, E-Verify or SSNVS processes because of citizenship status or national origin.
• Maintain copies of any documents accepted as proof of identity and/or employment authorization for all new hires.

For more, refer to:

1) DOJ Press Release

2) DOJ Press Release on one of the largest settlements against a major healthcare system

3)  Our list of services and solutions

__________________

About Immigration Compliance Group

For those of you who may be first time readers, Immigration solutions provides US and Canadian business immigration services to employers and individuals and additionally provides a full range of I-9 employment eligibility compliance services for employers that require I-9 audits, training, and compliance policy development.

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

We recommend that every employer read this brochure very carefully. As it clearly states, the: “OSC vigorously investigates and prosecutes such claims of discrimination.  Employers found to be engaging in discriminatory activity may be required to pay civil penalties and any appropriate back pay to injured parties.”

The case examples provided with accompanying fines mentioned in the brochure are excellent studies for HR professionals that deal with I-9s on a daily basis. We highly recommend that you print this out and add it to your M-274 Employer Handbook.  Make sure that all HR representatives, HR and hiring managers involved with the I-9 process has a copy of this brochure.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office at:  info@immigrationcompliancegroup.com, or by phone 562 612.3996.

Do you need an I-9 Audit?

Most employers think that because they have never filed an immigration case for a foreign worker, that they do not need to worry about their I-9’s or immigration laws. This type of thinking in today’s enforcement climate, is indeed risky business.

YOU MAY BE AT RISK.

What most employers do not understand is that employment verification requirements are governed by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”). The provisions of the law hold every employer in the USA responsible for verifying the identity and work authorization status of the employees that they hire. The means by which this is done is the I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form that every employee must fill out on the day of hire or earlier (both citizen and non-citizen).  Employers are being fined for clerical and technical mistakes and violations on their I-9 forms, whether an employee is a US citizen or non-citizen  – it makes no difference.

Penalties and Fines

The penalties for ignoring the legal requirements of the I-9 process can be quite severe, even in cases of unintentional omissions and uncorrected I-9 mistakes. Civil penalties for such errors may range from $110 to $1,100 for each affected employee.  A business with thousands of employees and multiple worksites may face a significant financial burden in noncompliance penalties.  The fines may be further increased if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines that an employer knowingly hired unauthorized foreign nationals, and can range from $375 to $16,000 per violation with repeat offenders on the high end. Employers and their representatives convicted of having engaged in a pattern or practice of knowingly hiring unauthorized foreign nationals, may also face criminal charges and fines of up to $3,000 per employee and/or six months’ imprisonment.  Other federal criminal statutes may provide higher penalties in certain fraud cases.

“FINES CAN RANGE FROM $375 UP TO A MAXIMUM OF $16,000 PER VIOLATION”

Employers and individuals who commit citizenship status or national origin discrimination may be ordered to pay civil fines and attorneys’ fees. The penalties range from $375 to $3,200 for the first offense for each individual discriminated against; from $3,200 to $6,500 for the second offense; and for subsequent offenses, not less than $4,300 up to $16,000 per violation for each affected person.

How We Can Help?

Our I-9 audits can help employers:

• Become aware of the reoccurring mistakes and violations contained in their I-9 population and correct the I-9 form before the government intercedes
• Provide a confidential “Risk Assessment Report” on your overall Form I-9 program and make proactive recommendations for compliant I-9 processing and management
• Develop reasonable I-9 policies and procedures that make sense for your business

Internal training on all Form I-9 requirements and procedures including but not limited to:

• I-9 laws and regulations
• How to complete and correct the Form I-9
• Required Documents and Examination
• Re-verification of the Form I-9
• Discrimination and Penalties
• What to do if ICE comes knocking?
• Best Practices for Employer Compliance – and more

Don’t wait! Call (562) 612-3996

Or fill out the form here if you’re interested in an I-9 audit for your business or wish to inquire about other compliance services and solutions that we offer.

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.

Most employers think that because they have never filed an immigration case for a foreign worker, that they do not need to worry about their I-9’s or immigration laws. This type of thinking in today’s enforcement climate, is indeed risky business.

You may be at risk… What most employers do not understand is that employment verification requirements are governed by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”). The provisions of the law hold every employer in the USA responsible for verifying the identity and work authorization status of the employees that they hire. The means by which this is done is the I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form that every employee must fill out no later than the first day of work for pay – this includes both US citizens and non-citizens.  We link to more information here

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.