Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

  • Article: North Carolina Legislature Relaxes E-Verify Rules with HB 786 by Ann Cun

    North Carolina Legislature Relaxes E-Verify Rules with HB 786

    by Ann Cun

    When the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 36 back in June of 2011, it appeared the rules to E-Verify were fairly straightforward, allowing private employers of various sizes to enroll and begin using E-Verify on a scheduled timeline. Recently, it seemed the legislature wasn’t quite as happy as we thought with House Bill 36.

    North Carolina’s HB 36

    House Bill 36, now known as Session Law 2011-263 (S.L. 2011-263) mandated that “each employer, after hiring an employee in the United States, shall verify the work authorization of the employee through E-Verify.” The law applied to all private employers in North Carolina who employed 25 or more employees and included special provisions for county and municipal agencies to use E-Verify as well. Private employers found in violation of the law, after an investigation, would be subject to civil penalties for $10,000 for the first violation.

    The law became effective on October 1, 2011 with the following schedule for employers:

    • October 1, 2012, for employers with 500 or more employees
    • January 1, 2013, for employers with 100 or more employees (but fewer than 500 employees)
    • July 1, 2013, for employers with 25 or more employees (but fewer than 100 employees)

    At the time the bill became law, employees employed by a private employer for 90 days or fewer during a 12-consecutive-month period were exempt from the mandatory E-Verify requirement outlined above.

    North Carolina’s HB 786

    In April of this year, the state legislature introduced House Bill 786, further modifying how E-Verify would be enforced in the state of North Carolina.

    Under HB 768, no city or country or state government agency or board may enter into a contract with contractors (and their subcontractors) unless those contractors (and their subcontractors) have enrolled and are participating in E-Verify. This portion essentially expands E-Verify to state contractors and subcontractors.

    Curiously, the bill also amends the definition of an employee for private employers, from “any individual who provides services or labor for employer in this State for wages or other remuneration” by adding

    The term does not include an individual whose term of employment is less than nine months in a calendar year.

    What effect does this amendment to the definition of an “employee” for private employer have on the state of North Carolina? Alan Gordon, Founding and Managing Attorney at Alan Gordon Immigration Law in Charlotte, North Carolina, commented the amended definition “will particularly benefit agricultural employees who come to North Carolina to work during the growing season.”

    One could argue that the amendment to the definition of an employee would weaken S.L. 2011-263 (HB 36). “Not requiring employers to use E-verify for employees employed less than 9 months would make HB 36 less effective, in particular in industries that typically hire employees for 9 months or less,” said Mr. Gordon.

    If the redefinition of an “employee” potentially weakens the requirement for private employers to enroll and use E-Verify, particularly for seasonal or short-term employees, then why allow the amendment? The legislative record is fairly sparse so the intent of the legislatures is unclear.

    According to Mr. Gordon, “Regardless of the motivation, it would be helpful in alleviating the problems we have seen in other states relating to lack of agricultural workers in response to these types of laws.” In North Carolina though, farmers have been pushing back hard on the E-Verify mandate.

    The bill passed through readings of both the House and the Senate and was ratified last week. It is currently awaiting signature by Governor Patrick McCrory. It remains to be seen, in the long run, what effects obligatory E-Verify laws will have on all employers in the state.

    What are your thoughts about the amendment to the definition of an “employee”? Does it make sense?

    Originally published by LawLogix Group Inc Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    Ann Cun is a U.S. based immigration attorney who has helped companies in the technology, science, business, sports, entertainment and arts fields secure complex work visas for their employees. With more than a decade of experience as a paralegal and attorney, Ms. Cun possesses a stellar record of success. Her legal expertise also includes conducting internal I-9 audits for companies and developing I-9 compliant strategies and solutions. She is a graduate of UCLA and UC Hastings School of Law and has been invited to speak by the Bar Association of San Francisco and the American Immigration Lawyers Association on U.S. immigration related topics, as well as other international conferences. Ms. Cun is a contributing author and currently serves as Counsel and Principal Editor for LawLogix Group.

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and should not be imputed to ILW.COM.
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: