May 24, 2012

Illinois Prohibits Employers from Enrolling in the Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify Program

Effective January 1, 2008, Illinois will prohibit employers from enrolling in E-Verify, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program that electronically ascertains whether new hires are authorized to work in the United States. This amendment to the Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act prohibits enrollment in E-Verify unless Social Security Administration (SSA) and DHS databases can speed up and improve notification regarding which employees are not legally authorized to work in the United States. Specifically, the amendment bars enrollment by Illinois employers unless employers receive notice of employee ineligibility within three days after employee data is submitted in 99% of cases.

The E-Verify system currently operates as follows. At the time of hire, new employees complete Section 1 of the Form I-9 and present one document from List A or one document from both List B and List C to prove their identity and eligibility to work in the United States. The employer then examines the documents to determine whether they reasonably appear to be genuine, completes Section 2 of the Form I-9 and attests under penalty of perjury to the apparent genuineness of the documents. Within three days of hire, the employer submits to E-Verify employee social security numbers (SSNs) and other identification information, which is compared against SSA and, if necessary, DHS records. Federal law requires that E-Verify provide either a confirmation or tentative non-confirmation of an individual’s identity and employment eligibility within three working days of the initial inquiry.

If the new hire does not contest a tentative non-confirmation, E-Verify considers that to be a final non-confirmation of employment eligibility. If the new hire does contest a tentative non-confirmation, he or she is given instructions on how to pursue a secondary verification and has eight working days to contact the SSA or DHS to attempt to resolve the tentative non-confirmation. Federal law requires this secondary verification process to include a final confirmation or non-confirmation of employment eligibility within 10 working days of the tentative non-confirmation. The Illinois amendment seeks to require the SSA and DHS databases to make a determination on 99% of the tentative non-confirmation notices issued to employers within three days, as opposed to the 10 working days currently mandated by federal law.

Other states have passed laws demanding that employers cooperate with the DHS E-Verify program. Not surprisingly, on September 25, 2007, the United States filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois to enjoin the State of Illinois from going against this trend by implementing its amendment. The lawsuit contends that E-Verify now advises employers of employment eligibility within one day in approximately 93% of cases and that 750 Illinois employers currently participating in the program will be excluded because of the amendment’s stricter 99% notification requirement. The lawsuit further contends that Illinois has the fourth-highest estimated population of illegal aliens in the country and that the amendment will limit the federal government’s ability to help Illinois employers ensure that their workforce is legal. In essence, the lawsuit asserts that the Illinois amendment seeks to regulate a federal program and is, therefore, preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Until this amendment is enjoined or the lawsuit is resolved in its entirety, the Illinois legislation will become and remain law as of January 1, 2008.

© 2010 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

About the Author

Principal

Irving M. Geslewitz, a Principal in the firm's Labor & Employment and Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice groups, has extensive experience in representing employers from a broad spectrum of industries in all aspects of modern employment law, as well as traditional (union-related) labor law concerns. He regularly handles matters ranging from reviewing and...

312-521-2414

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.