Support through your toughest HR challenges: A network of 285,000 HR professionals.
Shawn Premer shows how doing the right thing for employees leads to positive business results.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
Members may download one copy of our sample forms and templates for your personal use within your organization. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.
The interplay between I-9 compliance and anti-discrimination regulations presents a major dilemma for employers. Generally, employers are required to accept facially-valid documents from the I-9 acceptable documents list without further inquiry. However, there are certain situations in which the employer would have a duty to inquire further about an employee’s status under the government’s “constructive knowledge” standards in order to avoid a charge of knowingly employing an unauthorized worker—for example, when placed on notice by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or through other reliable sources.
Importantly, employers should never rely solely on rumor or hearsay when making a decision regarding further inquiry or termination. A common problematic situation is when an employee presents new documents and admits that the previously-submitted I-9 documents were not real.
A Technical Assistance Letter (TAL) from the Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel (OSC), issued on January 8, 2015, discusses this situation. The OSC enforces the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the ways in which OSC educates the public is by responding to written requests for technical assistance about the anti-discrimination provision.
The January 8 letter provides general guidelines regarding discrimination concerns when an employee presents new work authorization documents and explains that the documents originally presented were not genuine. OSC referred the employer to the
Handbook for Employers, Guidance for Completing Form I-9. According to the book, in this situation the recommended course of action would be to complete a new Form I-9 and to include a written explanation. The handbook also states that the I-9 rules do not require termination of employment, so long as the presented new work authorization is facially-valid. If the employer wishes to terminate the employee in this scenario, the rules are more complex and may implicate discrimination concerns.
The January 8 letter states that an employee terminated under the above circumstances could allege citizenship status discrimination, national origin discrimination, or unfair documentary practices. The letter clarifies that whether or not such termination would violate the anti-discrimination provisions depends on the specific facts presented. For example, an employer with a consistently followed policy of terminating individuals for providing false information during the hiring process may have a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination.
Generally, if a properly completed form I-9 is already on file and does not require reverification, employers should not make further inquiry or terminate an employee based on the outcome of such an inquiry, unless solid information or proof is available to indicate that the employee is currently not authorized to work in the U.S. It is important to carefully evaluate each situation and determine what the proper course of action would be. As this analysis involves complex legal issues, employers should utilize the assistance of experienced immigration counsel.
Yova Borovska is an immigration attorney in the Tampa, Fla., office of Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney. Republished with permission. © 2015 Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please sign in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Talent Attraction Study: What Matters to the Modern Candidate
Apply by March 23
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies