New Jersey and Pennsylvania Consider Stricter Employment Verification Requirements

Proposed legislation in Pennsylvania and New Jersey would impose stricter work authorization verification requirements on employers.

Pennsylvania

State Flag of PennsylvaniaHouse Bill 1502 would require all contractors and subcontractors on public works projects to verify the employment eligibility of new employees through E-Verify, the federal electronic employment verification system, and to verify existing employees’ Social Security numbers. In June 2010, this bill was referred to the House State Government Committee.

House Bill 1503 would require all construction industry employers to verify the employment eligibility of new employees through E-Verify and to verify existing employees’ Social Security numbers. This bill was passed by the House in June 2010 and is currently in the Senate Labor and Industry Committee.

Employers that in good faith rely on federal programs (E-Verify and the Social Security Number Verification Service) to verify new employees’ legal work status and existing employees’ Social Security numbers will be immune from sanctions. However, employers face debarment from public work contracts (HB 1502) or license forfeiture (HB 1503) for noncompliance. Additionally, employers could face civil liability for retaliating against employees who complain about alleged violations or participate in investigations, hearing or inquiries concerning alleged violations.

New Jersey

State Flag of New JerseyNew Jersey has also introduced two bills, Senate Bill 1842 and Assembly Bill 2600, which would prohibit the employment of unauthorized workers and require all employers who employ 100 or more employees to verify the employment eligibility of all new employees through E-Verify beginning January 1, 2011; compliance for smaller employers would begin on January 1, 2012.

In New Jersey, a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien will exist if E-Verify was used for verification purposes. Violations can result in sanctions ranging from $100 to $1,000 and suspension and/or revocation of business licenses, depending on the severity of the offense. The New Jersey legislation, unlike the Pennsylvania bills, contains no retaliation provisions.

S1842 was introduced in May 2010 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. A2600, also introduced in May 2010, was referred to the Assembly Labor Committee.

Employer Audits

The New Jersey and the Pennsylvania proposals also contain enforcement mechanisms. Under the proposed measures, the Pennsylvania and New Jersey labor departments would conduct employer audits and investigate complaint-based allegations to ensure employer compliance. Given the current climate surrounding immigration, it is not surprising that both states have included audits as an enforcement tool. As we previously discussed on this blog, the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s immigration enforcement strategy is the employer audit and, thus far, federal agencies have doled out considerable fines for non-complying employers.

ICE Has Fined Texas Businesses over $600K Since October

Since October 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has levied over $600,000 in fines against Texas businesses for immigration-related violations ranging from incomplete I-9 records to employment of illegal immigrants, reports the Houston Chronicle. The largest fine ($360,000) imposed on a single business stemmed from an investigation commenced by the Bush administration in 2008. The newspaper’s review of federal records revealed a focus on fining employers rather than arresting undocumented workers, reflecting the Obama administration’s new immigration enforcement strategy that focuses on employer culpability through audits.

Obama Administration's Immigration Enforcement Strategy: Audits

Binders and Magnifying GlassAudits, not raids, are the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s immigration enforcement strategy, reports the New York Times. In the past year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) audited over 2,900 business to determine whether illegal immigrants were employed, and, in 2010, it imposed $3 million in civil fines. While audits are less visually dramatic than raids, the effects on workers and businesses are not.

If an audit reveals that a business employs illegal workers, the employer must fire those employees or face criminal charges. For employers in migrant-driven industries, audits significantly and immediately deplete their workforces, making it difficult to conduct business. For dismissed employees, finding work in local or surrounding areas is difficult because potential employers fear being audited themselves.

Though ICE officials contend the audits’ targets are egregious labor and immigration law violators, some contend that the agency is missing its mark by going after employee-friendly businesses. Others, however, contend that the agency’s efforts are insufficient because employees found to be illegal immigrants are being fired instead of being arrested and deported.

What Arizona's Controversial Immigration Law Means for Employers

State Flag of ArizonaWith many in the nation watching, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" ("SB 1070") into law. The legislation represents Arizona's latest effort to combat illegal immigration and is now the centerpiece of a national political firestorm, including criticism from President Obama and numerous public interest groups. In addition, SB 1070 already is the subject of two federal lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. Lost among this debate, however, are those provisions of the law directed toward Arizona employers. To learn more about the law and its implications for employers, please continue reading Littler's ASAP What Arizona's Controversial Immigration Law Means for Employers by Neil M. Alexander and Michael J. Lehet.

Arizona Governor Signs Controversial Immigration Enforcement Bill

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed into law an immigration enforcement bill generally acknowledged to be the “broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations.” The bill has attracted national attention, even drawing strong criticism from President Obama who, according to The Daily Telegraph, has instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to examine the measure’s legality.

Among other provisions, the law:

  • allows police officers to arrest individuals unable to provide documentation demonstrating their legal right to be in the United States;
  • allows police officers to charge illegal immigrants with criminal trespassing;
  • allows state residents to sue Arizona’s local or state officials or agencies if they “adopt[] or implement[] a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.”

The law also contains provisions regarding verification of employment authorization. Since December 31, 2007, Arizona employers have been required to use E-Verify, the federal electronic employment verification system, to authenticate employees’ legal work status. The new law amends existing provisions to require employers to retain employee verification records for either the duration of the employee’s employment or at least three years, whichever is longer.

Additionally, the new law establishes an affirmative defense of “entrapment” for employers charged with knowingly or intentionally employing unauthorized aliens. To successfully assert the defense, employers must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

  • law enforcement officers or their agents, and not the employer, started the idea of knowingly or intentionally hiring an unauthorized alien;
  • law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to knowingly or intentionally hire an unauthorized alien; and
  • the employer was not predisposed to commit the violation before law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.

However, an employer will not be deemed “entrapped” if it was predisposed to knowingly or intentionally hire unauthorized aliens and the law enforcement officers or their agents “merely provided the employer with an opportunity to commit the violation.”

ICE Serves 180 Audit Notices on Businesses in Five Southern States

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that it has served Notices of Inspection (NOIs) on 180 businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Tennessee. ICE will review these businesses’ hiring records to determine their compliance with federal employment eligibility verification laws. As previously discussed, in 2009 ICE developed a new enforcement strategy that includes significantly increasing the number of forensic audits. In December 2009, 1,000 businesses faced an audit. In July 2009, ICE issued more NOIs in one day—652—than it did in all of 2008.

House Bill Would Impose Criminal Penalties for Employing Unauthorized Aliens

This week, Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) introduced the “Criminal Penalties for Unauthorized Employment Act of 2010” (H.R. 4627). The bill amends section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1324a(e)(4)(A)) by establishing criminal penalties—and increasing the existing civil penalties—that can be levied against individuals with “hiring authority” who employ unauthorized aliens.

An individual with “hiring authority” is defined as having the “direct authority to
make a decision to hire or to recruit or refer for a fee, an individual for employment.” Should a violation occur, the offender could be subject to the following penalties for each unauthorized alien employed:

Criminal Penalties:

  • First offense: A fine of $2,500 and/or imprisonment up to one year.
  • Second offense: A fine of $5,000 and/or imprisonment up to two years.
  • Third offense: A fine of $10,000 and/or imprisonment up to five years.

Civil Penalties:

  • First offense: A fine of between $1,000-$5,000 (currently $250-$1,000).
  • Second offense: A fine of between $5,000-$10,000 (currently $2,000-$5,000).
  • Third offense: A fine of between $10,000-$20,000 (currently $3,000-$10,000).

The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

The City of Lancaster, California Will Require Businesses to Use E-Verify

Businesses in the southern California city of Lancaster will be required to use E-Verify to confirm new hires’ eligibility to legally work in the United States, according to the Los Angeles Times. Companies that fail to comply with the requirement could face revocation of their business license. At least 11,000 California business are already enrolled in the E-Verify program, which processed over 8.5 million queries in fiscal year 2009.

Over 1,000 Businesses Face ICE Forensic Audits in December

The Contra Costa Times reports that this month over 1,000 businesses will face forensic audits conducted by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Many businesses, e.g., those involved in the food supply chain, have been targeted because they are connected to public safety and to the United States’ “critical infrastructure.”

An audit involves ICE reviewing a company’s Form I-9s to verify employees’ identities and eligibility to work in the country. In 2008, fines increased by 25%, with the result that first-time offenders face penalties of between $375 to $3,200 for each unauthorized employee. In 2009, ICE has ordered companies to pay $800,000 in fines, more than four times the amount imposed in 2008.

Photo credit: Tom Ventura

Supreme Court Solicits Administration's Stance on Arizona Law Aimed at Companies that Hire Undocumented Workers

The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Solicitor General to submit a brief outlining the Obama administration’s stance on an Arizona law that punishes companies for hiring illegal immigrants, the Miami Herald reports. The justices will review this brief before deciding whether to hear a challenge to the law.

The law, enacted in 2006, allows private complaints to be filed against companies. Any company found to have “knowingly or intentionally” hired illegal immigrants can have its business license suspended or revoked.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with other corporate, labor and immigrant groups, is challenging the Arizona law, claiming that it interferes with Congress’s ability to set immigration policy. The Immigration Reform and Control Act explicitly preempts state action on immigration, except for regulations regarding business licensing. Although the Arizona law has yet to be executed, opponents argue that enforcement would violate federal law.

A Supreme Court ruling on the case could have a broad impact on immigration legislation: In the first three months of 2009, state and local governments introduced more than 1,000 immigration-related bills, 150 of which are specifically related to employment.

Bill Would Increase Employer Penalties for Hiring Undocumented Workers

A new bill introduced in the House by Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) would significantly increase fines and jail time for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens or fail to verify their employment eligibility using a new procedure outlined in the bill. The Illegal Immigration Enforcement and Social Security Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 98) increases penalties for each hiring offense of up to $50,000, up from fines ranging between $275 and $16,000 under current law. Offending employers could also be liable for deportation costs. In addition, employers would face jail sentences of up to five years per offense, up from the current maximum six-month sentence. The bill likewise authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to bring a civil action against an employer who fails to pay the assessed penalty. Continue reading entry on Littler's Washington DC Employment Law Update blog.