May 21, 2012

California Law Prohibits State from Requiring Employers to Use E-Verify

Perhaps in effort to reign in the rapidly growing number of individualized city and local E-Verify laws and simultaneously stimulate the California economy, Governor Jerry Brown signed the “Employment Acceleration Act of 2011” (AB 1236) which will take effect on January 1, 2012. This bill prohibits the state from requiring employers to use E-Verify. In a nutshell, the new law prohibits the state, cities or counties from requiring employers to use E-Verify, an electronic employment verification system that uses employees’ Social Security numbers to determine work eligibility. The bill makes certain exceptions for city or county workers, and also takes into account that E-Verify is a requirement for particular employers under federal or as a condition for employers receiving federal funds.

While E-Verify, when used in conjunction with other best practices, can greatly assist employers in ensuring an authorized workforce, these random E-Verify laws may confuse employers. California appears to be taking a stance on the issue, recognizing, perhaps, that a patchwork of local immigration laws with different requirements, different phase in dates, and enormous penalties at city and state levels makes it difficult for national companies to operate without running afoul of a law (or two). Will the federal government follow suit? It costs companies time and money to keep abreast of these laws - and even more time and money to determine whether or not the laws apply to their businesses. Our experience is that many public companies are unaware of what is required of them in terms of E-Verify and how the procedures for complying with the state laws should be implemented internally.

In fact based on our experience, many companies that are required to use E-Verify under the Federal Contractor FAR rule still have not properly flowed down the regulations to their subcontractors, vendors and suppliers even though the regulation was finalized over two years ago . The feeling seems to be, "If we ignore the requirement long enough it will just go away." That's not likely - monitoring of compliance will probably become more sophisticated on the part of the government. The time is now to begin tackling the E-Verify requirement, general I-9 compliance and the ever expanding list of requirements created by state laws. It's not an easy task considering the current economy, globalization and the long list of priorities businesses must deal with. Nonetheless, even if the odds are low that a company will be scrutinized, the list of potential perils - debarment, loss of business licenses, payback of deductions taken on workers ultimately determined to be unauthorized, monetary fines and penalties - is cause for serious concern.

While the E-Verify California law makes things easier and there has been a lull in national immigration compliance enforcement, national employers should count on a continuing increase in E-Verify mandates and a new round of ICE I-9 enforcement inspections, along with a resurgence of criminal and DOJ investigations in this area.

©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Shareholder

Dawn M. Lurie advises corporations on a variety of compliance-related issues, particularly I-9 alien employment verification matters and the minimization of exposure and liabilities.  She develops immigration compliance strategies and programs for both small and large companies alike. Dawn performs I-9, H-1B and H-2B compliance inspections during routine internal reviews, while performing due diligence (in the context of a merger, acquisition or sale) or while defending a company against a government investigation.  In fact, Dawn has defended a number of businesses in high...

703-749-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.