Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Harmful I-9 Hiring Practices Employers Should Avoid by Josie Gonzalez and Amanda Paquet

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Harmful I-9 Hiring Practices Employers Should Avoid by Josie Gonzalez and Amanda Paquet

    Harmful I-9 Hiring Practices Employers Should Avoid

    by Josie Gonzalez and Amanda Paquet

    [Editor’s Note: Today’s article is courtesy of Josie Gonzalez, Partner and Amanda Paquet, Attorney at Stone Grzegorek & Gonzalez LLP.]

    Immigration-related employment practices have become more and more complex and it is now more likely than ever that a seemingly harmless hiring practice may lead to a charge against an employer for discrimination on the basis of national origin, citizenship, or immigration status, including discriminatory Form I-9 and E-Verify practices. The opportunity to get “caught” is enhanced because the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (“OSC”) and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) have recently “teamed up” to combine their resources to address claims against employers, announced here. This is the latest in over 50 such partnership agreements that the OSC has with federal, state and local agencies, including USCIS, EEOC, and the State of California Department of Fair Employment & Housing.

    Highlights from the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the OSC and NLRB include:

    • Referral to appropriate agency – If it becomes apparent to OSC or NLRB personnel during case intake or case processing that the alleged conduct may also fall within the jurisdiction of the other agency, they will advise the complaining party that it may be appropriate to file a charge with the other agency and will provide the individual with informational materials regarding the other agency’s jurisdiction and contact information.
    • NLRB charge may toll statutory time limit for charges with OSC – Under the MOU, the “OSC considers the NLRB as its agent for the sole purpose of accepting charges that fall within the OSC’s jurisdiction in order to toll the statutory time limits for filing charges.” (Charges with the OSC must be filed within 180 days of the last alleged act of unlawful conduct.) With the charging parties’ consent, the NLRB will forward charges to the OSC that implicate a possible immigration-related unfair employment practice. OSC will then treat these NLRB charges as an OSC charge filed on the date that the NLRB received its charge.
    • Coordination of investigations – “[B]oth agencies shall coordinate the course of their respective investigations and will share information and participate jointly in the investigation, to the extent permitted under applicable law and agency policy, so as to minimize duplication of effort.” (Emphasis added.) Further, one agency may request to review the investigative file of the other agency and both agencies agree to cooperate with each other in response to FOIA requests by outside parties.

    Some Examples of Seemingly Harmless Hiring Practices

    • Over-documentation – Obtaining and recording work authorization and identity documents that exceed the minimum requirements of either List A or B and C of Section 2 of the Form I-9.
    • Insisting on the presentation of specific documents from certain applicants, especially those applicants who appear foreign-born – For example, for the Hispanic employee who claims U.S. citizenship, one cannot insist on a U.S. birth certificate or passport when a driver’s license and social security card suffice for work authorization. The temptation is strong to ask for certain documents that match the status checked in Section 1 of the Form I-9, such as asking for a permanent resident card for the individual who claims permanent resident status. However, the applicant always has the choice to present either the alien registration card or an unexpired government ID and social security card or other acceptable documents.
    • Rejecting valid documents because of unfamiliarity with their validity – Note that USCIS has issued numerous alien registration cards and employment authorization cards over the years. Employers should become familiar with all the acceptable versions of these documents, examples of which are available here.

    How Costly Are the “Harmless” Hiring Practices?

    The concern is not just theoretical. On June 27, 2013, the OSC announced a settlement agreement with national retailer resolving unspecified allegations that the retailer engaged in unfair documentary practices during the employment re-verification process, resulting in economic harm to some work-authorized individuals through lost work or seniority. Some of the penalties include:

    • Paying $175,000 in civil penalties and creating a $100,000 back pay fund to compensate the individuals who suffered economic harm;
    • OSC monitoring for two years;
    • Training and related reporting requirements for human resources personnel through 2015.

    Allegations are not always unspecified in settlement agreements. Nevertheless, employers must remember that just as in the initial Form I-9 process at time of hire, when re-verifying an employee’s expired work authorization, an must also allow employees to present any document or combination of documents acceptable by law. The same principles that apply to the manual completion of the Form I-9 also apply to the electronically completed Form I-9. With the advent of electronic Form I-9 programs, new, uniquely errant hiring practices have surfaced. For example, some electronic vendors have been known to lock out an employee’s choice of documents to present in order to conform with the immigration status the employee had selected in Section 1. This practice is not permissible. In fact, the recent settlement indicates the national retailer’s electronic vendor might have contributed to this unlawful practice:

    Within 120 days of the effective date of this Agreement, Respondent shall modify its electronic Form I-9 system to permit employees to complete Section 1 of the Form I-9 and to present documentation for Section 2 of the Form I-9 in a manner that complies with all employment eligibility verification laws and regulations.

    Do’s and Don’ts for Avoiding these Seemingly Harmless Hiring Practices/p>

    With OSC’s partnership with numerous agencies at the federal, state and local level, it is now more likely than ever that a seemingly harmless hiring practice may lead to an OSC charge. We recommend the following tips to help employers reduce encounters with OSC:

    • DON’T – Specify particular document(s) an employee should present to satisfy Form I-9 requirements or insist on more or different documents than those listed in the Form I-9 instructions.
    • DON’T– Require certain documentation from some applicants because of how the applicant answered Section 1 of the Form I-9.
    • DO – Give all employees the Form I-9 instructions that list the acceptable documents and let them choose which listed document(s) to present. This is a recommended best practice.
    • DO Become familiar with all versions of commonly-used List A, B, or C documents. Documents that reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the employee presenting them should be accepted.
    • DO – Remember that the above guidance applies both to “hard copy” and electronic Form I-9 systems, and not only to the initial Form I-9 process, but also to re-verifications.
    • DO – Check electronic I-9 systems for regulatory compliant systems by understanding how the vendor updates its systems and stays legally informed.

    Originally published by LawLogix Group, Inc. Reprinted with permission


    About The Author

    http://www.sggimmigration.com/wp-content/plugins/connections/includes/timthumb/timthumb.php?src=http://www.sggimmigration.com/wp-content/connection_images/Josie_Photo_original.jpg&h=120&w=100&zc=2Josie Gonzalez is a partner of Stone Grzegorek & Gonzalez LLP, and has represented employers in all aspects of immigration law for 30 years. She is a former public defender and criminal defense attorney. Ms. Gonzalez is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, where she received Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Juris Doctorate (Law) degrees. She has testified twice in Washington, D.C., regarding the impact of U.S. immigration laws on the business community, and is a frequent commentator on agency regulatory activities. She serves on the Board of Directors for the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), an 11,000 member voluntary bar association in the field of immigration and nationality law, and is Founding Chair of AILA’s Worksite Enforcement Committee. She is an AILA Mentor for member-attorneys needing assistance in the areas of Employer Sanctions and PERM Labor Certification. Ms. Gonzalez publishes numerous articles for legal and trade journals, and is Editor-in-Chief of AILA’s Guide to Worksite Enforcement and Corporate Compliance (2008), and Editor (1998) and Co-Editor (2005) of the David Stanton Manual on Labor Certification. She has been recognized by AILA with a Founders Award (2008) for the most substantial impact on the field of immigration law and policy, a Presidential Award (2006) for her work as Lead Counsel for the Amicus Brief submitted to BALCA for the first PERM appeal on record and for “Excellence in Advancing the Practice of Immigration Law” (1999), and by the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Immigration Law Section with a “Lifetime Achievement Award” (2005).

    http://www.sggimmigration.com/wp-content/plugins/connections/includes/timthumb/timthumb.php?src=http://www.sggimmigration.com/wp-content/connection_images/ChalmersAmanda3614X6lowres_original.jpg&h=120&w=100&zc=2Amanda Paquet's practice emphasizes business and investment immigration. She has represented of a broad range of clients from academics to entrepreneurs, with a particular interest in worksite enforcement and immigration compliance issues. Prior to joining Stone Grzegorek & Gonzalez LLP, Ms. Paquet was Director of Labor Relations and Employment Law for a Fortune 100 corporation with over 200,000 employees. Her responsibilities included the development and oversight of its business immigration program as well as the development of the company’s program for Form I-9 compliance. Ms. Paquet also has extensive experience as an employment law litigator at an AmLaw 100 firm. Throughout her career, Ms. Paquet has conducted hundreds of training sessions for audiences ranging from small groups to the thousands in the areas of employment law and immigration compliance.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.
      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      ImmigrationDaily
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      ImmigrationDaily
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
      ImmigrationDaily

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

      by


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      ImmigrationDaily
      Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
      08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      ImmigrationDaily
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
    • Article: PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases By Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III
      ImmigrationDaily
      PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases by Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III Before beginning a PERM case, an employer must always check the immigration history of the foreign national to confirm that he or she is eligible to receive permanent residency, and whether the applicant may expect to apply by Adjustment of Status or by Consular Processing. Focus must be placed on determining that the foreign national has always maintained status in the United States – whether it by as a temporary visitor for pleasure, business, as a student or in an authorized category of work. In addition to the Resume and Diplomas of the foreign worker, it is recommended to ask the worker to provide a time line to prove maintenance of status. This can be done by establishing an unbroken line of authorized stay and status in the US, and by confirming that the applicant has not worked without authorization by proving the monthly income from the time of first entering the United States. The issue of maintenance of status is more acute for vi...
      08-13-2018, 02:21 PM
    Working...
    X