Category: Labor & Employment

Do You Need Employment Practices Liability Insurance?

McBrayer

According to the 2012-2013 Edition of Jury Award Trends and Statistics, the national median award for employment practice claims in 2011 was $325,000, up from $172,500 in 2010. This figure confirms what many in the employment law community already know to be true, that the number of employment practices claims has increased, and with that increase there has been an increase in the size of awards over the years as well.  There is no reason to believe that this trend will not continue, and no business should believe itself to be immune from employment practice claims.

Every business of size should seriously consider carrying Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) to protect itself from employment-related claims, which can encompass everything from sexual harassment, to wrongful termination, to defamation.  Although a business’s first line of defense should always be thorough up-to-date and well written HR procedures and policies, EPLI coverage can be a valuable lifeline when an expensive and lengthy lawsuit is looming and it just may save your business from financial ruin.

Costs of EPLI policies vary greatly; the price is generally based on your business type, size and associated risk of employment practices.  Insurance companies will normally want to review copies of the HR forms, policies, and manuals to assess risk probability.  If you seeking EPLI, there are some things you should be looking for in a policy. These include, but are not limited to,

  • A broad definition of “insured,” so that all directors, officers, and employees are covered;
  • A broad definition of “claim,” so that criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings are covered, as well as arbitrations and investigations;
  • A practical deductible that can be met if the insurance is needed;
  • A carve-out for claims under federal statutes; if an employee brings a whistleblower claim for exercising rights pursuant to certain statutes such as COBRA, ERISA, or OSHA, you will likely want these claims to be covered by the policy; and
  • A choice of counsel provision so that the business can utilize an employment attorney that is familiar with the business, locality, governing law, and particular claim.

As an added bonus, some EPLI insurers even offer additional services free to their customers, such as a call-in line for general employment questions or sample employee handbooks. EPLI can offer peace of mind and valuable protection in the increasingly litigious employment law arena.

Article By:

 of

 

New I-9 Form Required by May 8, 2013

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

Effective May 8, 2013, employers are required to use an updated version of the I-9 form when verifying employee work authorization. The new I-9s will not be required for previously verified employees, only new hires and employees requiring reverification. Failure to use the updated I-9 form following the implementation date may result in fines ranging from $110 to $1,100 for each incorrect form.

As many employers are aware, I-9 forms must be completed to document the identity and employment authorization of all new hires. Section 1 of the I-9 must be completed by the employee on the first day of employment, and Section 2 completed by the employer within three business days thereof. Section 3 (Reverification and Rehires) need only be completed by the employer when reverifying that an employee is authorized to work or when an employee is rehired within 3 years of the date the I-9 was originally completed.

Revisions to the new I-9 form are threefold: (1) new format, (2) clearer instructions, and (3) additional data fields.

  1. Format: The updated I-9 has a new two-page format, which should be easier for employers to use. The first page of the form relates to employee information and certification, while the second page consists of the employer verification and reverification.
  2. Instructions: Additionally, the updated I-9’s instructions provide a more detailed explanation of the information required of employees and employers to properly complete the form.
  3. Data Fields: Finally, the new I-9 asks for several new pieces of information from employees, including email address, telephone number, and foreign passport information. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ request for additional employee contact information suggests that the agency may be more inclined to directly contact employees for information moving forward. Employees are not required to provide such information, however. The employee email address and telephone number fields are optional.

The updated I-9 form is available for download here.

Article By:

 of

“Gang of Eight” Senators Introduce Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation

GT Law

On April 17th, the group of Senators known as the “Gang of Eight” introduced the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, a comprehensive immigration reform bill, in the U.S. Senate. This bipartisan measure includes significant and wide-ranging changes to the nation’s current immigration system, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and key structural changes to temporary visas and employment verification requirements, as well as a new visa for low-skilled labor. Below is a summary of the key changes proposed in the new legislation, was also presented by the “Gang of Eight” in a press conference today. Greenberg Traurig will continue to monitor developments surrounding comprehensive immigration reform and provide additional updates about issue-specific proposals as we continue to assess the proposed changes contemplated by this bill.

Legalization for Undocumented Immigrants

The proposed legislation would permit unlawfully present individuals who entered the U.S. on or prior to December 31, 2011 to obtain Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status. Such individuals would need to pay a penalty and back taxes. However, they would be permitted to apply for Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status after ten years as well as eventual naturalization. Agricultural workers and DREAM Act-eligible applicants would receive the benefit of expedited eligibility for the benefits above.

Family-Based Immigration

The proposed legislation would transfer the FB-2A visa category applicable to the spouses and children of U.S. Legal Permanent Residents to the FB-2A category currently in effect for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, eliminate the FB-4 category for the siblings of U.S. citizens, and limit the age of eligibility for the married children of U.S. citizens to 31 years old. The bill would also reinstate the V visa for the spouses and children of Lawful Permanent Residents.

Employment-Based Immigration

The proposed legislation would exempt EB-1 immigrants, individuals with doctoral degrees, physicians who have completed the foreign residency requirements and derivatives from the annual quota. A new EB-6 category for certain classes of entrepreneurs would also be introduced.

H-1B Non-Immigrant Visas

The proposed legislation would increase the current annual quota of 65,000 H-1B visas to 110,000, with a yearly ceiling of 180,000 visas. The bill would increase the number of visas available to holders of advanced degrees from the current 20,000 visas to 25,000, with the caveat that this allotment be allocated toward STEM graduates only. The H-1B application process would also undergo major structural changes, including the introduction of a recruitment requirement for all Labor Condition Applications on a website managed by the U.S. Department of Labor, a non-displacement attestation, and a change to formula for calculating the prevailing wage. Significantly, H-4 dependents would also have access to employment authorization and H-1B holders would enjoy a 60-day grace period to find new sponsorship after termination.

Low and Lesser Skilled Labor

The new legislation aims to create a W visa for lesser-skilled non-agricultural workers (W-1), temporary agricultural workers who perform work under a written contract (W-2), and “at-will” workers who receive a full-time employment offer in an agricultural field (W-3). The new W visa program would supplant the current H-2A agricultural worker program.

Immigration Compliance

The new legislation would make E-Verify, the federal government’s Web-based employment eligibility verification system, mandatory for all employers across the nation. The phase-in period, ranging from 90 days to 4 years, would vary according to the company’s number of employees. In addition, the bill includes language indicating that employers will be presumed to have knowingly hired an unauthorized worker if they do not verify the individual’s work authorization via E-Verify after their mandatory enrollment date. The new bill would also permit employers to utilize a three-day grace period for re-verifying the work authorization of employees with expired work authorization. It also calls for the Social Security Administration (SSA) to create tamper-resistant Social Security Cards to combat document fraud.

Article By:

 of

Senate Immigration Bill To Impact Business, Technology and Defense Sectors

Barnes & Thornburg

On April 17, 2013, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators known as the “Gang of Eight” introduced an immigration bill entitled the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013.”

The bill includes provisions that substantially increase the number of visas for highly-skilled workers, creates a new visa category for lower-skilled workers, eliminates the backlog for employment-based immigration, and authorizes significant resources to achieve border security.

The bill aims to increase the annual cap of certain employment-based nonimmigrant visas (H-1B) from 65,000 to 110,000 and the number may increase up to 180,000 depending on labor demands and the unemployment rate. In order to ensure that American workers are not displaced by H-1B workers, employers will continue to be required to pay the prevailing wage to H-1B workers and it has been proposed that the prevailing wage system be strengthened. Also in fiscal year 2014, companies will be banned from bringing in additional workers if more than 75 percent of their workers are H-1B or L-1 employees. The bill also provides for dual intent visas for all students who come to the U.S. on a bachelor or advanced degree program.

To ensure the U.S. has sufficient lower-skilled workers, the bill creates a new nonimmigrant category known as the W-Visa. Eligible recipients would be immigrants who come to the U.S. to perform services or labor for a registered employer and for a registered position. Beginning April 1, 2015, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security extends the start date, the maximum cap for four years would be 75,000 visas.

The bill proposes to exempt from the annual numerical limits multinational executives and managers; immigrants of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; and doctoral degree holders in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields.

The bill allocates a significant number of all employment-based visas to individuals holding advanced degrees in STEM fields, in particular. The bill also creates startup visas for foreign entrepreneurs seeking to establish a company in the U.S.

The bill provides $3 billion to implement the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy for achieving and maintaining effective control in all high risk border sectors along the southern border. The funds will be used for acquiring, among other things surveillance and detection capabilities developed or used by the U.S. Department of Defense; fixed, mobile, and agent portable surveillance systems; and unmanned aerial systems and fixed-wing aircraft and necessary and qualified staff equipment to fully utilize such systems.

The bill permits undocumented immigrants, who entered the U.S. before December 31, 2011 and who do not have a serious criminal record, to apply for a Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status. This would permit an individual to work legally in the U.S. for any employer. RPI status would last for a 6-year term that is renewable if the worker has not committed any acts that would render the worker deportable.

The Senate bill is likely to undergo changes as other U.S. Senators and constituents weigh in on this important bill. A House bill is also expected to be unveiled soon. If the bills can pass their respective chambers, then bicameral negotiations would begin in an attempt to pass a final comprehensive immigration reform bill for the President to sign into law.

Article By:

 of

Supreme Court Finds Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action Mooted By Offer Of Judgment

DrinkerBiddleRegMark_rgb_hires

In a traditional lawsuit, when a defendant offers a plaintiff the full amount the plaintiff seeks, that generally ends the litigation because the plaintiff no longer has a justiciable interest in the matter.  On April 16, 2013, the Supreme Court held in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk that a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) affords no exception to that rule.

Symczyk, a registered nurse, sued her former employer, Genesis Healthcare Corporation, a nursing home operator, for allegedly automatically deducting a half hour’s pay for lunch breaks irrespective of whether an employee took one.  Symczyk brought her claim as a collective action under the FLSA, which requires that similarly situated employees must opt in to the action in order to be represented by the plaintiff.

Two months after Symczyk filed her complaint, Genesis offered her full recovery on her claim, plus attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.  The offer gave Symczyk 10 days in which to respond.  Symczyk failed to respond within 10 days, after which Genesis moved to dismiss on the ground of mootness.  The District Court granted the motion, reasoning that no other plaintiffs had joined the action and that Symczyk’s individual claim was moot because she could not recover more than Genesis had offered her.  The Third Circuit reversed.  Although it found that the settlement offer mooted Symczyk’s individual claim, it ruled that the defendant’s strategy nonetheless frustrated the FLSA’s goals by “short circuit[ing]” the collective action process.

On April 16, 2013, the Supreme Court reversed.

In doing so, the majority declined to reach the question of whether Symczyk’s individual claim had been mooted by virtue of an unaccepted offer, finding that the question had been waived:

[W]e do not reach this question, or resolve the split, because the issue is not properly before us.  The Third Circuit clearly held in this case that respondent’s individual claim was moot….  Moreover, … [i]n the District Court, respondent conceded that “[a]n offer of complete relief will generally moot the [plaintiff ’s] claim, as at that point the plaintiff retains no personal interest in the outcome of the litigation.”  Respondent made a similar concession in her brief to the Court of Appeals, and failed to raise the argument in her brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari.  We, therefore, assume, without deciding, that petitioners’ Rule 68 offer mooted respondent’s individual claim.

Relying on Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, the majority concluded that the District Court properly dismissed the case because “respondent has no personal interest in representing putative unnamed claimants or any other continuing interest” and thus “respondent’s interest became moot when her individual claim became moot.”  Justice Thomas concluded by noting that the claims of employees other than Symczyk had not been extinguished:  “While settlement may have the collateral effect of foreclosing un-joined claimants from having their rights vindicated in respondent’s suit, such putative plaintiffs remain free to vindicate their rights in their own suits.  They are no less able to have their claims settled or adjudicated following respondent’s suit than if her suit had never been filed at all.”

Justice Kagan’s dissent took the majority to task for relying on legal errors that she believes the lower courts had committed and the plaintiff had not challenged below:

The Court today resolves an imaginary question, based on a mistake the courts below made about this case and others like it.  The issue here, the majority tells us, is whether a ‘collective action’ brought under the [FLSA] ‘is justiciable when the lone plaintiff’s individual claim becomes moot.’  Embedded within that question is a crucial premise: that the individual claim has become moot, as the lower courts held and the majority assumes without deciding.  But what if that premise is bogus?  What if the plaintiff’s individual claim here never became moot? …. Feel free to relegate the majority’s decision to the furthest reaches of your mind: The situation it addresses should never again arise.

She then proceeded to offer her answer to the question the majority had declined to reach:

[A]n unaccepted offer of judgment cannot moot a case. When a plaintiff rejects such an offer—however good the terms—her interest in the lawsuit remains just what it was before.  And so too does the court’s ability to grant her relief.  An unaccepted settlement offer—like any unaccepted contract offer—is a legal nullity, with no operative effect….  Nothing in Rule 68 alters that basic principle….  So assuming the case was live before—because the plaintiff had a stake and the court could grant relief—the litigation carries on, unmooted.

She concluded by complaining that allowing a defendant to “eliminate the entire suit by acceding to a defendant’s proposal to make only the named plaintiff whole … would short-circuit a collective action before it could begin, and thereby frustrate Congress’s decision to give FLSA plaintiffs the opportunity to proceed collectively.”

Article By:

Business Groups Applaud Expected Compromise on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

GT Law

The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC)*, a coalition of businesses, trade associations, and other industry organizations concerned with the shortage of lesser skilled and unskilled labor, and the TechServe Alliance, an industry group that represents IT & engineering interests before the U.S. Congress and other policymakers, have recently released statements applauding the bipartisan effort to craft a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, which many expect will be formally introduced shortly, was spearheaded by the “Gang of Eight” – namely Senators Rubio, Flake, McCain, Graham, Schumer, Menendez, Bennet and Durbin – and includes proposals for granting legal status to undocumented immigrants, requiring all U.S. employers to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system, creating a new less-skilled worker visa program, and permitting IT staffing firms to retain access to the H-1B visa program.

To view a summary of the provisions included in The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, please click here. To read EWIC and TechServe Alliance’s statements about the new legislation, respectively, please click here and here.

* Laura Foote Reiff, Co-Chair of Greenberg Traurig’s Business Immigration and Compliance practice, is a co-founder of EWIC.

Article By:

 of

Employee’s Deactivation Of Facebook Account Leads To Sanctions

DrinkerBiddleRegMark_rgb_hires

The latest Facebook case highlights how courts now intend to hold parties accountable when it comes to preserving their personal social media accounts during litigation.  Recently, a federal court ruled that a plaintiff’s deletion of his Facebook account during discovery constituted spoliation of evidence and warranted an “adverse inference” instruction against him at trial.  Gatto v. United Airlines and Allied Aviation Servs., et al. , No. 10-CV-1090 (D.N.J. March 25, 2013).

The plaintiff, a ground operations supervisor at JFK Airport, allegedly suffered permanent disabling injuries from an accident at work which he claimed limited his physical and social activities.  Defendants sought discovery related to Plaintiff’s damages, including documents related to his social media accounts.

Although Plaintiff provided Defendants with the signed authorization for release of information from certain social networking sites and other online services such as eBay, he failed to provide an authorization for his Facebook account.  The magistrate judge ultimately ordered Plaintiff to execute the Facebook authorization, and Plaintiff agreed to change his Facebook password and to disclose the password to defense counsel for the purpose of accessing documents and information from Facebook.  Defense counsel briefly accessed the account and printed some portion of the Facebook home page.  Facebook then notified Plaintiff that an unfamiliar IP address had accessed his account.   Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff “deactivated” his account, causing Facebook to permanently delete the account 14 days later in accordance with its policy.

Defendants moved for spoliation of evidence sanctions, claiming that the lost Facebook postings contradicted Plaintiff’s claims about his restricted social activities.  In response, Plaintiff argued that he had acted reasonably in deactivating his account because he did know it was defense counsel accessing his page.  Moreover, the permanent deletion was the result of Facebook’s “automatically” deleting it.  The court, however, found that the Facebook account was within Plaintiff’s control, and that “[e]ven if Plaintiff did not intend to deprive the defendants of the information associated with his Facebook account, there is no dispute that plaintiff intentionally deactivated the account,” which resulted in the permanent loss of  relevant evidence.  Thus, the court granted Defendants’ request for an “adverse inference” instruction (but declined to award legal fees as a further sanction).

The Gatto decision not only affirms that social media is discoverable by employers, but also teaches that plaintiffs who fail to preserve relevant social media data will face harsh penalties.  Employers are reminded to specifically seek relevant social media (Facebook, Twitter, blogs, LinkedIn accounts) in their discovery requests since such sources may provide employers with sufficient evidence to rebut an employee’s claims.  This case also serves as a reminder and a warning to employers that the principles of evidence preservation apply to social media, and employers should take steps very early in the litigation to preserve its own social media content as it pertains to the matter.

Article By:

 of

U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Application of ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) to State and Local Workers

The National Law Review recently published an article, U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Application of ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) to State and Local Workers, written by Jennifer Cerven of Barnes & Thornburg LLP:

Barnes & Thornburg

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan on the issue of whether state and local government employees can bypass the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and sue for age discrimination under an equal protection theory. The case is Madigan v. Levin, Docket Number 12-872.

Appellate courts are split on whether the ADEA is the exclusive route for state and local government employees to bring a claim for age discrimination, or whether an equal protection claim via Section 1983 is available. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the Plaintiff, a former Assistant Attorney General, could go forward with a Section 1983 age discrimination claim against certain defendants (including Madigan) in their individual capacity.  The Seventh Circuit decided that the ADEA does not preclude a Section 1983 claim, but acknowledged that its decision was contrary to rulings in other circuits holding that the ADEA is the exclusive remedy for age discrimination claims.

The question presented to the Supreme Court is whether the Seventh Circuit erred in holding that state and local government employees may avoid the ADEA’s remedial regime by bringing age discrimination claims under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. 1`983.

In the petitioner’s brief asking the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, Madigan noted the circuit split and argued that if the Seventh Circuit’s ruling were to stand, there would be about one million state and local workers in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin who would be able to bypass the ADEA’s administrative dispute resolution process at the EEOC and go straight to court.  Madigan argued that this would undercut the ADEA and would deprive state and local governments of prompt notice of claims.

The outcome of the case will be important not only for state and municipal employers, but also for individual employees.  As a practical matter, the plaintiff could end up with no further opportunity for an age discrimination claim if the Supreme Court decides that the ADEA forecloses age claims under Section 1983.  That is because the lower court decided that the employee fell under the ADEA exclusion of policy-making level employees, 29 U.S.C. §630(f).  Moreover, sovereign immunity applies to protect states from individual suits for monetary damages under the ADEA, under Supreme Court precedent in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S.  62.

The case is likely to proceed to briefing during the current term and may be scheduled for argument in the fall term.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Warning to in-house Counsel: Be Careful When Responding to Demand Letters

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP‘s Jerrold J. Wohlgemuth recently had an article, Warning to in-house Counsel: Be Careful When Responding to Demand Letters, featured in The National Law Review:

DrinkerBiddle

 

It’s a common occurrence: counsel sends a demand letter to an employer explaining the basis for his/her client’s claim of discrimination or wrongful discharge, and threatening to sue, but offering to discuss settlement in advance of filing a complaint.  In-house counsel responds by explaining why the claim has no merit, but expressing a willingness to discuss settlement, with the understanding that in the event of litigation the correspondence would be inadmissible under Evidence Rule 408 as a communication concerning settlement.  It says so right in the Rule:  “a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim” is inadmissible “to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim.”  But the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has reminded us that is not always the case.

In its recent decision in Bourhill v. Sprint Nextel Corp., the District Court affirmed the decision of the magistrate judge allowing the plaintiff in his cross-motion for summary judgment to rely on a portion of in-house counsel’s response to a demand letter.  In that case, the demand letter first described the factual basis for the contention that the employee’s discharge was unlawful under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and then set forth counsel’s position that while he believed the case had merit, his client was willing to avoid litigation if the matter could be resolved by means of an “adequate compensatory settlement.”  In-house counsel wrote a two paragraph response under the subject line caption “Confidential/For Settlement Purposes Only.”  In the first paragraph in-house counsel denied that the discharge was unlawful and explained in factual detail that it had been made for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons.  The second paragraph expressed an interest in discussing an amicable resolution and requested a specific demand.  In the ensuing litigation, plaintiff’s counsel relied on the letter as an exhibit in his cross-motion for summary judgment, and defense counsel moved to strike.

Before moving on to discuss the decision of the magistrate judge it is important to recognize that in-house counsel responded in the normal, customary fashion when responding to a demand letter of this type.  It is the magistrate judge’s decision, and the subsequent decision of the District Court discussed in the next part, that should give every in-house counsel pause when responding to any demand letter.

The magistrate judge granted the defendant’s motion to strike with respect to the second paragraph inasmuch as it clearly invited plaintiff’s counsel to make an offer to settle, but denied it as to the first.  In this regard, the magistrate judge determined that the two parts of the letter were not “logically connected” and could therefore be evaluated separately because the first was addressed to the merits of the claim articulated in the demand letter while the second concerned the offer to compromise.  The magistrate judge then found that the first paragraph did not implicate Rule 408 because it did not “contain an actual compromise or a suggestion of a genuine willingness to resolve the dispute.”

On appeal, defense counsel argued that the letter should be read in its entirety as a response to the settlement inquiry, that the first paragraph was designed to make clear that the company did not place a high monetary value on the claim, and that public policy requires that the parties be free to express their positions in settlement communications without fear they will be used to prove liability.  The District Court did not disagree, but affirmed the decision of the magistrate judge based on the conclusion that he had simply made a finding of fact – that the paragraphs were not “logically connected” – which could not be overturned on appeal.

This is not the first time a court has determined that a portion of a communication otherwise covered by Rule 408 may be admitted into evidence because it did not directly address the subject of settlement.  But the decision should serve as a reminder to in-house counsel to be extremely careful when responding to demand letters, to avoid including any facts, statements or admissions that could be difficult to explain in litigation and to make clear in each paragraph that it has been written in response to the demand letter for the limited purpose of exploring the possibility of settlement.

©2013 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Form I-9 Finally Makes Its Appearance

The National Law Review recently published an article, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Form I-9 Finally Makes Its Appearance, written by W. Chapman Hopkins of McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC:

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) just announced the long-awaited new Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.  Although the previous form expired on August 31, 2012, employers have continued using the previous form pending the issuance of the revised form.

As before, all U.S. employers must ensure proper completion of Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States, including citizens and non-citizens. The form requires input from both the employee and employer (or an authorized representative of the employer). Although the new form is largely substantively the same, several stylistic changes were made in order to make it easier to read and more user-friendly.

For example, the instructions are clearer and there are new distinct data fields for employee information. The entire document consists of nine pages, with only two of these (pages 7 and 8) requiring completion. When providing the form to employees to fill out, however, it is important to provide the entire form so that they may read all instructions.

If your business maintains an electronic I-9 system, you should receive an update from your vendor about implementation. If you use paper versions, you can access the form here. It is a fillable PDF file, but may also be completed by hand. Despite only two pages requiring information, the form in its entirety should be kept on file.

Employers can start using the new form immediately, but must use it after May 7, 2013, as the old form will no longer be accepted after that date. Failure to use the new form could result in fines and penalties. Remember that required government forms are free, so you should never have to pay to be in compliance.

The USCIS provides in-depth detail about Form I-9, however government instruction is not legal advice.

© 2013 by McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC