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
House 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
New 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.
With the July 2, 2010 submission deadline approaching, individuals in Washington are trying to collect 241,153 signatures to place an immigration-related measure on the November ballot,
The New York Times
The Washington Post
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has
The New York Times
This week, Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) introduced the “Criminal Penalties for Unauthorized Employment Act of 2010” (
.jpg)
On December 9, 2009, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano confirmed her stance that immigration enforcement is a necessity and must be achieved in conjunction with comprehensive reform of the United States’ broken immigration system. Secretary Napolitano stated, "We can no longer perpetuate a status quo that is unacceptable for workers, employers, law enforcement, faith leaders, and America as a whole. We must seize this moment to build a truly effective immigration system that deters illegal immigration, provides effective and enduring enforcement tools, protects workers from exploitation and retaliation, and creates a tough but fair path to legalization for the millions of illegal immigrants already here."
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 

