This rule implements as an inflation adjustment fines for employing unauthorized workers for Form I-9 paperwork violations, and for immigration-related discrimination. These new fines increase the penalties from 35% to 96% depending on the nature and severity of the violation.

We encourage you to review your policies, procedures and your Form I-9 inventory.  Remember, the key to defending any employment related investigation is to evidence that there is and has been a consistent pattern of responsible, good faith effort on the part of the employer in establishing a compliant workforce.

Refer here for the details.

Plain and simple, failing to comply with IRCA’s I-9 rules have, and are continuing at a rapid rate, to result in significant fines, loss of access to government contracts, an onslaught of negative publicity, business closure, criminal penalties and even imprisonment.  Here are a few examples of recently settled cases in August 2015:

1) Creating discriminatory barriers for immigrants who have permission to work in the United States, $165 civil penalty with $50K in back pay:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-discrimination-claim-against-louisiana-crane-construction

2) Requiring non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility, $200K civil penalty: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-immigration-related-discrimination-claim-against-nebraska-based

3) City of Eugene, OR improperly restricted law enforcement positions to U.S. citizens at the time of hire, even though no law, regulation, executive order or government contract authorized such a restriction. must pay a civil penalty, train its employees about the anti-discrimination provision of the INA and be subject to monitoring by the Justice Department for a period of three years!
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-citizenship-discrimination-claim-against-city-eugene-oregon

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

Immigration Compliance Group provides US inbound immigration services to individuals and employers throughout the USA and abroad. We specialize in business immigration and have a depth of experience in the IT, healthcare, arts, entertainment and sports industries, amongst others. Our services include complex business visas for investors, multinational managers, skilled professionals, outstanding individuals of high achievement (O-1, P visas, EB-1 and EB-2 Exceptional Ability cases) and PERM Labor Certification.  We additionally provide employer compliance consulting services on proper I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification) management, auditing, training, and work with our clients to develop a culture of immigration compliance. Our door is open for new clients — we extend a 20% discount on the first case with our firm.  Contact us at info@immigationcompliancegroup.com or call 562 612.3996.

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

In the USDOJ published decision United States v. Four Seasons Earthworks, ICE made it clear that with respect to form I-9 compliance, late is not any better than never. Four Seasons failed to pass an ICE audit that found incomplete form I-9 List A and List C information. The company asserted they obtained every employee’s social security number and maintained supporting documents (like military IDs and birth certificates) necessary to verify employment eligibility. ICE’s response was terse, “Late production nevertheless does not absolve the respondent from liability.”

Securing qualified employees can be stressful. Once a worthy recruit is hired, employers may be anxious to have the new-hire begin working even before they secure the required documentation to complete the I-9 form. Improper documentation constitutes a violation under the INA. In it’s investigation of Four Seasons Earthworks, the ICE Forensic Auditor calculated penalties based upon the following formula:

 Number of Violations divided by the total number of current & former employees up to inspection date = % of base fine

Additionally, 5% increases for bad-faith or serious violations are tacked on to penalties. The number of undocumented workers, the size of a business, and previous violations are also considerations that increase penalties.

Thankfully, an employer’s good faith attempt to comply with obligations can influence a penalty reduction. ICE views hiring violations on a continuum, recognizing violations vary in severity. If your company finds itself in a similar situation with employees who are not properly documented, hiring immigration compliance professionals may greatly reduce your chances of incurring audit-initiated penalties. Contact us for support in planning and implementing legally sound solutions to protect your company’s future:  562 612.3996 | info@immigrationcompliancegroup.com.

By:  Timothy Sutton, Communications Editor

“Homeland Security Investigations is committed to holding businesses and their managers accountable when they knowingly hire an illegal workforce,” –John Kelleghan, Special Agent in charge of HSI Philadelphia.

Homeland Security, the FBI, and ICE did much more than hold GPX/GPX, USA, a seismic surveying company and their field supervisor, Donald Wiggill, “accountable,” by charging the company with a total maximum fine of $10 million, a probation term of five years on each count, and a special assessment totaling $8,000; Wiggill faces an unconscionable indictment of 100 years in prison on all 20 counts, a fine of $5 million, a supervised release term of 60 years, and a special assessment of $2,000. The Texas based company failed to verify the immigration status of nineteen employees and did not prepare the required Form I-9 and supporting documentation concerning the immigrants’ authorization to work in the United States.

John Kelleghan of Homeland Security further justified the Philadelphia HSI decision to levy such harsh punishment for I-9 non-compliance saying, “HSI and our law enforcement partners will continue to ensure that employers follow our nation’s hiring laws, which ultimately protect job opportunities for the nation’s legal workers, and levels the playing field for those businesses that play by the rules.”

The proportionality of the punishment sought for the crime is extremely shocking. Our blog has recently covered the penalties imposed upon, HerbCo, Chipotle, and most recently ABC Tree Professionals, which pale in comparison to the punishment GPX is now facing.

GPX is being treated like a national security threat for mishandling nineteen employees Form I-9s. The difference between thousands of dollars versus millions of dollars in fines, in addition to 100 years of jail time, is the involvement of the FBI and the Homeland Security. GPX is charged with harboring and transporting illegal aliens and conspiracy to commit those offenses as outlined in an indictment by the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Peter J. Smith. Whether GPX was honestly aware of their employees’ immigration status is still unknown, however proper planning and implementation of I-9 compliance would have saved the company millions in civil penalties and avoided a hundred years of jail time. With the stakes elevated so tremendously high by this multi-departmental crackdown on workforce compliance –  who can afford not to get their legal documents in order?

To protect your business and your employees please contact one of our immigration professionals at info@immigrationcompliancegroup.com or call 562 612.3996.

By:  Timothy Sutton, Communications Editor

For the Houston based ABC Professional Tree Service, Inc., firing non-compliant workers and implementing E-Verify was too little too late. Even after implementing E-Verify and firing hundreds of workers following an ICE audit in 2008, the Immigration Customs Enforcement agency of the Department of Homeland Security recently announced reaching a $2,000,000 non-prosecution agreement with ABC. Shockingly, the sum was based upon ICE’s estimation of profits ABC earned through illegal labor practices.

After four years of investigation, ICE did not release how the $2,000,000 figure was reached. However, they did release an estimate that up to 30% of the 2,500 ABC employees were illegally employed. In a press release on May 18, 2012, ICE espoused ABC knowingly employed illegal workers after receiving “no-match letters” from the Social Security Administration. Additionally, on March 4, 2010, two years after the initial audit, ICE seized records from the ABC Birmingham office through a federally issued warrant. Undocumented employees in the Alabama office and working in the field were detained.

Typically Form I-9 violations lead to heavy monetary penalties, but in this case ICE chose to cut a non-prosecutorial deal. It is unclear from the information released whether or not the $2,000,000 sum is more or less than ABC would have faced in fines? But more importantly, businesses like ABC who are subject to years of audits and investigations, despite implementing E-Verify and discharging employees, have little bargaining power. Consequently, the best defense against an ICE audit is total compliance. Employers would be wise to hire a professional consultant to train staff, organize existing documentation and manage future non-compliance issues. The Immigration Compliance Group has the experience and resources necessary to protect your business from an ICE audit.  Contact one of our immigration professionals at info@immigrationcompliancegroup.com or call 562 612.3996.

By:  Timothy Sutton, Communications Editor

Like many successful restaurant managers, I worked my way up from the bottom of the employee food chain. That meant with each promotion from bus boy to manager, I was trained by other employees on how to do my job. By the time I became a General Manager, I erroneously believed that being a good manager meant being able to follow established procedures. I soon discovered that this was actually a recipe for disaster.

Auditioning a new waiter is a common practice in the restaurant industry. This entails observing an applicant voluntarily interacting with customers, taking orders, serving food and working with other employees. Typically, the audition ends with a free meal in exchange for the waiter’s time and parking validation if the restaurant is generous. Throughout the industry, restaurateurs believe that this practice limits their liability because the applicant has not yet become an employee in “volunteering,” their time to audition for the job.

However, the M-274 Handbook For Employers instructions on completing form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Form) classifies this practice of meals and parking reimbursement as remuneration: anything of value given in exchange of labor or services, including food or lodging. Because restaurant managers typically train one another on hiring practices, there is a perpetual false belief that auditioning waiters is a healthy hiring practice. According to the M-274, the work done in exchange for the value of a meal exposes restaurants to form I-9 non-compliance fines. Essentially, the audition becomes Day One of employment, which requires I-9 forms to be completed and retained.

If the applicant is not hired, both Section 1 and 2 of the I-9 form must be completed that same-day in order to comply with rules regarding employees retained for three-days or less. Without the proper knowledge and training on these I-9 compliance issues, managers expose their companies to thousands of dollars in fines by auditioning waiters. A successful manager goes beyond following the established procedures by having the foresight to seek professional guidance to ensure that company employment practices are in accordance with the law.

For fresh insight into how your business’s employment practices can become a recipe for success contact our office at info@immigrationcompliancegroup.com or call 562 612.3996.

Please refer to our informative Employer Resource Center for more, and here for a list of our services and solutions.

We have heard many recent reports that ICE will step up the pressure on its I-9 Field Agents to surpass the number of I-9 audits they performed in 2011, and that they will be looking at various industries such as employers in critical food, energy, and infrastructure industries. In June 2011, ICE did not specify which businesses would be specifically targeted, but did say that immigration agents would focus on seventeen sectors including agriculture, financial services, nuclear reactors, water treatment, and health care.

It has been recently reported by the Farm Employer’s Labor Service (FELS) that the  EVP of NCAE (National Council of Agricultural Employers) was informed by credible sources that ICE field agents will once again focus their I-9 audit investigations on high-profile agriculture and restaurant employers to surpass their 2,496  I-9 audits and 3,291 work site enforcement cases conducted in 2011.  More specifically, they are again (no surprise) targeting high-profile/maximum press coverage employers, the biggest farms and restaurants, and employers who were previously audited and/or had issues with DOL or DHS in the past –  who can now expect to be be revisited in 2012.

With good faith effort being one of the most important rules applied in ICE enforcement audits and investigations, it is recommend that all employers get their ‘houses in order’ as it relates to I-9 employment verification eligibility compliance.  We would strongly suggest that you put your emphasis on  retaining an outside expert to perform a thorough I-9 audit of your active and inactive I-9 forms to really get a handle on problems and reoccurring issues buried in your I-9 forms.  This step alone can save you hundreds of thousands of dollars, as well as the potential of losing employees and recruitment and re-training costs.  Then get your staff trained and don’t let anyone not properly trained be involved with hands-on I-9 functions.  Next, establish a written compliance statement outlining the SOP that your company will follow — a plan that makes sense for your business……then implement it, and be diligent in your efforts to create and maintain  a compliant workforce showing a good faith effort to comply with I-9 regulations to the best of your knowledge and ability.  Lastly, avail yourself of reliable information from skilled professionals that report on compliance issues – subscribe to a newsletter and a blog so that you can stay ahead of the game.  You should check out our free information – both blog and newsletters.

We invite you to contact our firm to discuss your compliance issues, info@immigrationcompliancegroup.com or call 562 612.3996.

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

Immigration Compliance Group focuses its practice on corporate employment verification compliance and US and Canadian inbound business immigration.   Our team has a depth of experience in providing uniquely tailored services and solutions to assist clients in developing comprehensive employment authorization and immigration-related compliance.  We conduct onsite and offsite  I-9 audits for companies of all sizes, design training curriculum to assure that staff is knowledgeable concerning the  management of their I-9 program, and we assist with policy development so that our clients have a plan and strategy that assures their compliance in a manner that makes sense for their business and evidences their good faith in establishing a compliant workforce.

It has been recently reported that ICE is launching another round of worksite investigations, but this time, returning to employers that have already been through a federal investigative audit in the last three years.  We’ve not seen this before. Approximately 500 employers are being re-visited by ICE Special Agents to confirm that non-compliant activity identified during prior audits has been resolved.

Employers must make sure they are hiring only people who can work legally in the U.S. Businesses that previously have received warning letters or administrative fines may now be the subject of yet more fines if ICE Special Agents determine that  the employer continues to make the same mistakes.

Bear in mind, that several Federal agencies have the authority to review your I-9 forms, these agencies consist of ICE, The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) and the DOL, Wage and Hour Division.  Each of these agencies investigate violations in the I-9 process, and we strongly advise that employers need to be prepared for a visit from any one of them.

ICE has recently announced their enforcement related statistics in the area of I-9 compliance for 2011, as follows:

• 2,496 I-9 audits were conducted
• 3,291 worksite enforcement cases were initiated
• Criminally arrested 221 employers
• Issued 385 Final Orders for $10.4+ million in fines; and
• Debarred 115 individuals and 97 businesses

These enforcement statistics should indeed be troubling to employers, particularly given that  they don’t reflect the number of ICE notices (such as the Notice of Discrepancies or Notice of Suspect Documents) that are sent to employers, who are otherwise compliant, but may have accepted fraudulent documents or whose employees may have purchased the identity of a US citizen for work authorization purposes, despite your best efforts.  As a result of this, employers across the country have had to terminate thousands of employees and incur the expense of hiring and training new employees.

ICE expects to audit some 3,000 employers in 2012.  We recommend that you hire experts in the field to conduct either a partial or full audit, depending upon your circumstances, train personnel who are charged with the processing of your I-9 forms, and develop a written policy statement that reflects your goals for remaining compliant.

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.