ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily

 




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

I-9 E-Verify Immigration Compliance

description

  1. IER Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against Levy Restaurants

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	LEVY_header.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	6.6 KB 
ID:	1170

    The Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), formerly known as the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, reached a settlement agreement with Levy Premium Foodservice Limited Partnership d/b/a Levy Restaurants. The settlement resolves the investigation of a charge filed by the charging party, a lawful permanent resident, against Levy’s Barclay Center restaurant in Brooklyn, New York, alleging discrimination in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

    The IER concluded that Levy discriminated against two lawful permanent residents by improperly reverifying their employment eligibility because of their immigration status. It also determined that Levy improperly required them to present specific types of documents to re-establish their employment eligibility and suspended the charging party when he was unable to present such a document.

    The anti-discrimination provision of the INA prohibits employers from subjecting employees to unnecessary documentary demands based on the employee’s citizenship, immigration status or national origin.

    Levy cooperated throughout the investigation, quickly reinstated the charging party, and restored his lost wages and leave benefits. Under the settlement, Levy must pay a civil penalty of $2,500 to the United States, undergo IER-provided training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA, and be subject for one year to IER monitoring and reporting requirements – providing the I-9 forms of all non-U.S. employees hired during this period of time to IER for review as to whether Levy Restaurants is abiding by the law.

    This settlement demonstrates the need for employers to be careful as to the presentation of documentation by employees. Employers may not demand the presentation of certain documents, such as a green card. Rather, it is up to each individual employee to choose document(s) that are listed on the List of Acceptable documents.
  2. OCAHO States Good Faith Does Not Warrant 25% Mitigation

    By Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Department of Justice PNG.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	20.7 KB 
ID:	1169

    In another decision involving a small restaurant in Hamburg, the Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) reduced the restaurant’s penalty from $46,657 to $33,725 for four violations of failing to prepare and/or present I-9 forms and 67 violations for failing to properly complete I-9 forms. See U.S. v. 3679 Commerce Place, Inc. d/b/a Waterstone Grill, 12 OCAHO no.1296 (2017).

    Since Waterstone Grill admitted liability, the only issue before OCAHO was the amount of the penalties. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) used $935 as the baseline penalty per violation based on a violation rate of over 50%. In an unusual twist, ICE found a 25% mitigation was warranted based upon the restaurant’s good faith in preparing the I-9 Forms. Normally, the five statutory factors, including good faith, are worth the 5% mitigation or aggravation. ICE also mitigated by 5% each due to the restaurant’s small size and the 67 employees in Court II were determined to be eligible for employment. ICE aggravated by 5% for the seriousness of the violations.

    Waterstone Grill asserted it deserved mitigation for three of the four employees in Count I because they were authorized to work and several non-statutory factors, including general public policy of leniency toward small businesses, its cooperation with ICE during the investigation, including enrolling in E-Verify, and its inability to pay the $47,000 penalty.

    OCAHO found 25% mitigation for good faith was unwarranted, especially where ICE offered no explanation for the size of the mitigation. However, some mitigation, which was not defined, was warranted. Concerning its inability to pay, OCAHO found it failed to show it could not pay the penalty, but found the proposed penalty should be viewed in light of the company’s financial situation. Although OCAHO found an employer’s post-inspection remedial measures may support mitigation, it declined to find such here.

    OCAHO found ICE failed to prove the employees in Count I were unauthorized to work. OCAHO stated “it does not always follow that a factor found not to be aggravating (which is normally where the factor of unauthorized workers is found) must necessarily and automatically be mitigating.” However, in this case, OCAHO decided this was a mitigating factor.

    OCAHO determined the proposal penalty should be reduced to $475 each for a total penalty of $33,725. As the facts demonstrate, if Waterstone would have performed an internal I-9 audit before ICE arrived with the NOI, most of the I-9 violations could have been corrected and not subject to a penalty.
  3. OSC Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against J.E.T. Holding

    By Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	northern-marianas0.gif 
Views:	11 
Size:	11.2 KB 
ID:	1168

    The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) (just renamed the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice) reached a settlement to resolve claims that J.E.T. Holding Co. Inc. discriminated against U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and certain work-authorized immigrants in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). J.E.T. is a company based in Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), where it operates a restaurant, bowling alley and amusement center.

    The investigation found evidence that for approximately the first five months of 2016, J.E.T. engaged in a pattern or practice of refusing to hire U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and other work-authorized individuals for several dishwasher positions. OSC concluded that J.E.T. failed to consider qualified U.S. citizen applicants and others based on their citizenship or immigration status because of a preference for hiring non-immigrant foreign workers with CW-1 visas. The CW-1 visa grants temporary work authorization to its beneficiaries and is only available in the CNMI.

    Under the terms of the settlement, J.E.T. will pay a civil penalty of $12,000, establish a backpay fund of $40,000 to compensate qualified claimants for any lost wages through a claims process, train its workers on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA, and be subject to department monitoring.
  4. OCAHO Finds No Document Abuse

    By Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	E_VERIFY_LOGO.jpg 
Views:	10 
Size:	9.5 KB 
ID:	1167

    An individual’s claim of document abuse by a company was dismissed by Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) because the company was abiding by E-Verify laws in declining a List B document without a photograph. See Johnson v. Progressive Roofing, 12 OCAHO no. 1295 (Jan. 2017).

    Michael Johnson was hired by Progressive Roofing and thereafter presented his documents in the process of completing his I-9 form – voter registration card (List B document) and two List C documents- a birth certificate and a social security card. Progressive Roofing told Johnson that the documentation was insufficient because the voter registration card did not contain a photograph. Although unclear whether Progressive Roofing explained the insufficiency, the company was enrolled in E-Verify which requires a List B document, if presented, to contain a photograph. (Alternatively, an employee may present a List A document.)

    Johnson filed a charge with the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) (since renamed the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section) alleging document abuse for the company’s failure to accept his List B and C documents. OSC dismissed the charge for insufficient evidence of a violation but advised him of the right to file his own complaint with OCAHO. Johnson did so, alleging the same violation. Thereafter, Progressive Roofing filed an Answer and Motion for Summary Decision asserting it did not violate the law because it was following E-Verify practices and procedures by requiring a List B document containing a photograph or List A be presented. Johnson did not respond to the company’s motion.

    OCAHO explained document abuse occurs when an employer requests more or different documents than necessary or rejects valid documents and does so for the purpose of discriminating on the basis of citizenship status or national origin. Thus, document abuse takes two elements, an act and intent. It has not been a strict liability offense since the amendments to 8 U.S.C. §1324b(a)(b) in 1996.

    OCAHO found Johnson did not establish a prime facie case of discrimination because Progressive Roofing was an enrolled participant in E-Verify, which requires any List B document presented to contain a photograph, and did not request more or different documents than required by law. Assuming arguendo, Johnson established a prime facie case, Progressive Roofing met its burden by showing it had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for requesting a List B document with a photograph – to be in compliance with federal law. Finally, Johnson did not allege this defense was pretextual. Therefore, OCAHO dismissed Johnson’s complaint.

    This decision reminds employers that the use of E-Verify requires following certain rules, including only accepting List B documents with a photograph. In rejecting Johnson’s List B document, Progressive Roofing was merely following the applicable law.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mye-verify_uscis.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	3.7 KB 
ID:	1166  
  5. OSC Renamed Immigrant and Employee Rights Section

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Department of Justice PNG.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	20.8 KB 
ID:	1165

    Effective January 18, 2017, U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division has implemented a final rule to update regulations concerning enforcement of employment-related anti-discrimination provisions under the “unfair immigration-related employment practices” section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

    One of the most interesting changes is the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, usually referred to as Office of Special Counsel or OSC, is being renamed the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section. It will remain part of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. However, the individual in charge of the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section will still be referred to as Special Counsel due to statutory language. Thus, this may cause some confusion for attorneys and the public.

    Probably the most significant change in the regulations is a definition of “discriminate” to clarify that an employer’s intent to discriminate must be based on national origin or citizenship status. This definition of intent does not consider what reason an employer may have had. Under the new rule, DOJ explains that if the employer is intentionally treating the permanent resident differently for an unlawful reason, such as citizenship status, then the employer has discriminated.

    Other significant changes in the new regulations include:

    • Individuals who submit a discrimination claim within the 180-day period provided by law now have an additional 45 days to submit information if the Special Counsel decides that they did not provide enough information to meet the requirements for a “charge”;
    • Charges may be filed after the 180-day time limit under certain circumstances;
    • The Special Counsel may file a complaint based on an investigation the office initiated, up to five years after the date of alleged discrimination;
    • Definition of the term “citizenship status” includes refugees and asylees, which is consistent with Special Counsel’s current practice;
    • Definition of the statutory phrase – “more or different documents than required under such section” to be consistent with OCAHO case law;
    • Definition of the term “charge” to make it broader as to what is acceptable; and
    • Definition of the term “hire”.
Page 1 of 58 1231151 ... LastLast
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: