Section 409A Again? Employers Need to Re-examine Executive Employment Contracts and Other Agreements Conditioning Severence Payments Upon a Release of Claims

Recently posted at the National Law Review by Nancy C. Brower and David L. Woodard of Poyner Spruill LLP – information for employers about the tax Consequences of employment agreements, retention agreements, severance agreements and change in control agreements: 

Agreements that provide for payments upon termination of employment, such as employment agreements, retention agreements, severance agreements and change in control agreements, often condition payment upon the return of an executed release of claims. Since Section 409A allows agreements to provide for a payment window of up to 90 days from separation from service, it was widely believed that an agreement could provide for payments to begin upon the return of a release, provided the release was required to be returned within the 90-day window period and the company determined the time of payment. In Notice 2010-6, the IRS stated that this type of provision is not Section 409A compliant. Fortunately, at the end of last year, the IRS came out with relief that will allow companies to correct this problem without employees incurring Section 409A taxation.

Action Step

Companies should immediately identify all employment agreements, retention agreements, severance agreements and change in control agreements that condition severance payments upon the return of a release. All of these agreements should be reviewed for Section 409A compliance based on the new guidance from the IRS. Companies should not rely on the fact that the agreements were previously reviewed for Section 409A compliance, since the 2010 guidance from the IRS was not anticipated by most practitioners. Companies should pay careful attention to the timing of payments made under impacted agreements during 2011, as payments made after March 31, 2011 must comply with the corrective guidance contained in Notice 2010-80. Further, any impacted agreements that are outstanding or have any payments still due after December 31, 2012, must be amended to correct the agreement provisions in accordance with Notice 2010-80 no later than December 31, 2012.

 © 2011 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

Verification Two-Step: One step forward, one step back—A review of the GAO report on the progress made to improve E-Verify

Recently posted at the National Law Review – Kevin Lashus and Maggie Murphy of Greenberg Traurig provide some great insight(s) on the recently filed GAO Report on E-Verify and why employers should be concerned: 

Washington, D.C. (January 19, 2011) —  On January 18, 2011, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its December 17, 2010 report entitled, “Employment Verification: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve E-Verify, but Significant Challenges Remain.”  Provided is a summary of the GAO’s findings, and where we believe USCIS’ Verification Division may move to implement modifications to the existing system based upon the GAO’s recommendations.

The report is a summary of the review GAO conducted to assess how USCIS and SSA have been able to ensure accuracy of the verification process in E-Verify and whether either (or both) have taken measures to combat fraud.  Specifically, GAO examined efforts taken by both agencies to (1) reduce tentative nonconfirmations (TNCs), (2) safeguard private personal information submitted, and (3) prepare for the increased use of the program that may result from either increased state and local legislation (executive action) or a federal mandate.

Two of the conclusions of the report should be of great concern to employers:

(1) Because TNCs are more likely to affect foreign-born employees, the issuance of false TNCs (TNCs issued commonly because names are recorded differently on various ID and work authorization documents) will likely lead to increased allegations of discrimination; and

(2) E-Verify remains exceedingly vulnerable to identity theft and employer fraud.

Some of the other significant findings:

  • Employees are limited in their ability to identify the source of and how to correct information in the DHS and SSA databases (including the significant delay in the correction process—commonly taking an average of 104 days).
     
  • Long-term cost associated with the administration of the E-Verify program and complementary national systems and SSA databases do not reliably depict current budgetary allocations for the costs of administration.
     
  • Securing sufficient resources to effectively execute the program plans for the future has not been anticipated and may not be properly anticipated in budgetary projections.
  • Recommended fixes to the program will result in increased transactions costs, including the resolution of false TNCs, administrative leave for employees to allow them to resolve erroneous mismatches, and additional training costs to educate the employees about reducing the likelihood of name-related, erroneous TNCs.
  • USCIS should consider providing an employee-accessible portal that would allow employees to correct inaccuracies or inconsistencies within DHS databases.
     
  • USCIS and SSA should finalize the terms of the service-level agreement that defines the requirements of SSA to establish and maintain the capacity and availability of its system components.
  • USCIS should consider a budget for the life-cycle cost of the program that reflects the four characteristics of a reliable estimate consistent with best practices—essentially, that long-term there is enough resources to ensure the program is comprehensive, well-documented, accurate, and credible.

Notwithstanding the findings, there is a clear message contained in the report:  Comprehensive reform is required to root-out the incidence of document fraud. The use of biometrics in identification/authorization documentation is the only likely cure of the ills currently inherent in the system. 

Until that time, USCIS must reallocate resources to address fraud issues—doubling the number of monitoring and compliance staff to oversee employers’ use of E-Verify AND allocating resources to recognize and correct mismatched information in the various DHS databases. 

In other words, instead of addressing the defects of the verification paradigm, the Government is allocating additional resources to address problems with the process that cannot be cured with the current system.  Notably,

  • Senior E-Verify program officials reported that the Monitoring and Compliance Branch is limited in its ability to fully identify patterns and trends in the data that could signal employers’ noncompliance, but E-Verify will be committing $6M in implementing advanced data systems to gain the capacity to conduct complex analyses of E-Verify data.
  • Senior E-Verify program officials will also be reaching out to employers who fail to master the training tutorial—either with a compliance letter (a compliance failure notification) or a phone call—to further assist employers with the E-Verify process. They  will then follow up with the “targeted” employers to assess whether the prior non-compliant behavior has been adjusted.
  • Senior E-Verify and ICE worksite enforcement agents reported that they are currently coordinating to help USCIS better target its monitoring efforts because (1) login profiles to the E-Verify program are not monitored, (2) USCIS cannot currently monitor the extent to which employers follow the MOU provisions, and (3) employers who do not respond and remedy noncompliant behavior are not adequately sanctioned under the current program.

Ultimately, a great deal of the burden to address the deficiencies of the current verification system will fall to employers.  The current patchwork system cannot address the underlying reality that as long as 11 or so million unauthorized employees require employment to survive, a robust market of sophisticated, fraudulent documents will flourish.  Until the problems are adequately addressed, increased oversight and monitoring of the program will result in increased scrutiny of the employer by both ICE and USCIS, with the risk that compliance policy modification may result in increased allegations of discrimination.

Sure seems like one step forward, one step back.

This Alert is issued for informational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as general legal advice. 

 Media Contact: Lourdes Brezo-Martinez, Greenberg Traurig, PA 212-801-2131.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Reprieve For Fully Insured, Non-Grandfathered Group Health Plans From Complying With PPACA Nondiscrimination Rules

From featured guest bloggers Amy M. Christen and Gabriel S. Marinaro of Dykema Gossett PLLC – updates on the implementation of the Public Health Service Act: 

Notice 2011-1 states that the Treasury Department and the IRS, as well as the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services (collectively referred to as the “Departments”), have determined that compliance with new nondiscrimination rules under Section 2716 of the Public Health Service Act (“PHS Act”) will not be required until plan years beginning after regulations or other administrative guidance has been issued. The Departments issued Notice 2011-1 in response to concerns raised regarding a plan sponsor’s ability to implement the new nondiscrimination rules without such guidance, and specifically held that a plan sponsor of a non-grandfathered fully insured group health plan would not be subject to the excise taxes for failure to comply with such new nondiscrimination rules, nor be required to file IRS Form 8928 until plan years beginning after the guidance has been issued.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “Affordable Care Act”) added Section 2716 of the PHS Act, which prohibits a fully insured, non-grandfathered group health plan from discriminating in favor of highly compensated individuals as to eligibility to participate in such plan, as well as to benefits offered to participants under the plan in accordance with the rules similar to the ones set forth under Code Section 105(h). Under Code Section 105(h), highly compensated individuals generally include the five highest-paid officers, employees at any time during the plan year with more than a 10 percent ownership, and all other employees who are among the highest-paid 25 percent of all employees. If a fully insured, non-grandfathered group health plan discriminates in favor of highly compensated employees as to eligibility to participate or as to providing benefits to participants, the employer will be the party to suffer the consequences. Specifically, the Affordable Care Act imposes an excise tax on employers that do not satisfy the market reform and consumer protection provisions of the Affordable Care Act equal to $100 per day for each affected participant, up to a maximum fine for unintentional failures of $500,000 per taxable year. The IRS (or HHS) has discretion to waive the tax in whole or in part to the extent the failure was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, and small employers with no more than 50 employees may be exempt from such tax with certain exceptions. An employer also may be subject to a civil lawsuit filed by non-highly compensated employees. Until guidance is issued stating otherwise, it does not appear that highly compensated individuals will be subject to any adverse income tax consequences on the value of health benefits provided under a discriminatory fully insured, non-grandfathered group health plan. 

If a fully insured group health plan maintains its grandfathered status (within the meaning of Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act and the Departments’ grandfathered regulations), then it is exempt from these new nondiscrimination requirements. A group health plan has grandfathered status only if it existed as of March 23, 2010, and it does not make plan design changes above certain threshold amounts set forth in the grandfathered plan regulations. Additionally, certain HIPAA-excepted benefits are not subject to the new nondiscrimination requirements, including a limited-scope dental or vision plan that is offered through a different insurance carrier than the medical plan or is offered separately to employees for an additional premium cost. Unless future guidance provides otherwise, HIPAA-excepted benefits that are not subject to the new nondiscrimination rules also may include a stand-alone retiree-medical plan that covers only former employees of an employer (and does not cover active employees).

Before the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the nondiscrimination requirements under Code Section 105(h) only applied to self-insured group health plans. A self-insured plan is one in which the employer pays for the benefits out of its general assets as opposed to paying through a fully insured policy. IRC Section 105(h) prohibits a self-insured plan from discriminating in favor of highly compensated employees as to eligibility to participate or in favor of highly compensated participants as to benefits provided under such self-insured plan. A discriminatory self-insured plan produces adverse tax consequences to the highly compensated employees / participants (e.g., all benefit reimbursements made under a discriminatory plan will be taxable to such highly compensated individuals rather than any excise taxes on the employer).

The Departments have requested additional comments on PHS Act Section 2716 by March 11, 2011, and Notice 2011-1provides specific issues on which the Departments would like additional comments as a follow-up to the public comments received in response to IRS Notice 2010-63.

© 2011 Dykema Gossett PLLC.

EPA Defers GHG Permitting Requirements for Biomass Industries

An update from the National Law Review’s friends at Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP – Linda Bochert, Michelle Wagner & Anna Wildeman:  

In a move designed to encourage clean energy and the use of biomass as a fuel, on January 12, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced a 3-year deferral of the newly enacted Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) permitting requirements for biomass-burning industries and other biogenic sources.

Effective January 2, 2011, large GHG emitters – e.g., power plants, refineries – must obtain air permits and implement energy efficiency measures or cost-effective technologies to reduce GHG emissions when building new facilities or making major modifications to existing facilities.  EPA plans to complete the rulemaking to implement the deferral of the GHG permitting requirements for biomass-burning industries and other biogenic sources by July 2011. To cover the six-month gap until the deferral rule becomes effective, EPA is expected to issue guidance allowing state and local permitting authorities to conclude that the use of biomass is the best available control technology for GHG emissions.

EPA is implementing the deferral to enable it to seek and consider scientific research on carbon dioxide (“CO2”) emissions from biomass sources, including evidence that biomass based energy generation can be carbon-neutral. During the deferral period, EPA will seek input from other governmental agencies as well as from independent experts. EPA will also consider more than 7,000 comments it received from its July 2010 “Call for Information,” requesting public comment on approaches to account for GHG emissions from biomass-burning sources. Before the three year deferral ends, EPA expects to develop a second rulemaking that addresses how GHG emissions from biomass-burning and other biogenic sources should be treated under the Clean Air Act GHG permitting requirements.

In a separate, but related matter, EPA notified the National Alliance of Forest Owners (“NAFO”) that the agency will grant NAFO’s petition to reconsider the portion of EPA’s “Tailoring Rule,” finalized this past May 2010, which addresses the treatment of biomass carbon emissions. The biomass industry at large, including NAFO, was taken aback when EPA finalized its Tailoring Rule without any exemption for biomass-burning facilities.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

Employment Law – What’s in Store for 2011?

Melvin J. Muskovitz of Dykema Gossett, PLLC is a featured guest blogger this week at the National Law Review. Three pending Supreme Court decisions are discussed along with their potential impact for employers:  

Many employers faced challenges in 2010 related to the economy.  These challenges often involved personnel issues, including workforce reductions.  With unemployment still a serious problem heading into 2011, terminated employees are less likely to  find new employment opportunities and may be more inclined to claim they were terminated for illegal reasons.  This  article looks at three decisions the Supreme Court will be addressing this year that involve wrongful discharge claims.  Regardless of the outcome, these cases underscore the importance of  carefully considering all adverse employment decisions.

Additionally, this article will briefly address the new regulations and a step employers can take to protect themselves against violations of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act  (GINA).

Supreme Court Decisions on the Horizon

Oral complaints – are they protected under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision?

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which provides minimum wage and overtime protections to employees, also provides protection from retaliation against employees who file a complaint  alleging FLSA violations.  In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp, the Supreme Court will decide if an oral complaint satisfies the FLSA provision that protects employees  against retaliation because the employee “has filed any complaint.”   Kevin Kasten worked for Saint-Goban Performance Plastics and was required to use a time card to swipe in and out of an on-site time clock.  Kasten was disciplined on four separate occasions for violations of the time card policy.  Discipline for the infractions was progressive and eventually resulted in  his termination.  Kasten alleges that before the third infraction and thereafter, he verbally complained to his supervisor and Human Resource personnel that the location of the time clock was illegal.  He claims that he was terminated in retaliation for his verbal complaints that the location of the time clock violated the FLSA.

The lower courts are split on the issue of whether an oral complaint satisfies the “has filed any complaint” threshold.  The Supreme Court will resolve this discrepancy between the various federal circuits.

Retaliation against a third party – is it protected?

Title VII, which prohibits discrimination based upon protectedcharacteristics (sex, race, etc.), also prohibits retaliation against an employee who “has made a charge,  testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing.”  In Thompson v North American Stainless, the Supreme Court will decide if a third party to the charge is also protected from retaliation. Eric Thompson worked for North American Stainless as a metallurgical engineer.  He was engaged to a co-worker.  The co-worker/fiancée filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging that she was discriminated against because of her  gender.  Three weeks after the EEOC notified North American of the complaint, Thompson was terminated.  He alleges that he was terminated in retaliation for his fiancée’s EEOC charge.

The 6th  Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Michigan) ruled for the employer, stating that the anti-retaliation provision is  “limited to persons who have personally engaged in protected activity.”  The Supreme Court will decide whether to uphold that decision or whether to extend anti-retaliation protections to third parties who did not personally engage in protected activities.

Influence over decision maker – when does it become illegal?

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects employees from discrimination based upon their military service.  In Staub v Proctor Hospital,  the Supreme Court will decide under what circumstances an employer may be held liable based upon the discriminatory bias of someone who influenced the ultimate decision maker, but who did not make the employment decision at issue.

Vincent Staub worked for Proctor Hospital as an angiopraphy technologist.  He was also an army reservist and therefore was unavailable for work one weekend a month and for two weeks during the summer.  One of his supervisors, the second in command in Staub’s department and the person responsible for preparing the work schedules, frequently expressed anti-military bias and  was openly displeased about having to accommodate Staub’s schedule.  Staub was disciplined by  the supervisor for reasons unrelated to his military service and he was ultimately terminated  based upon that discipline.  While the decision to terminate Staub was made by Human  Resources, Staub alleged that the decision was actually the result of the supervisor’s anti-military  bias.

A jury found in favor of Staub, a decision that was overturned by the 7th  Circuit Court of  Appeals.  The Supreme Court has agreed to decide under what conditions an employer can be held liable for the bias of a person who influenced or caused an adverse employment action – but  who did not actually make the decision.  A ruling in favor of the employee could have far  reaching implications for employers as the rationale would likely apply to other statutes that  prohibit discrimination.

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) Regulations

On November 9, 2010, the Department of Labor issued the final regulations that interpret and  implement GINA.  The regulations take effect on January 10, 2011.  GINA, which went into  effect on November 21, 2009 and applies to employers with 15 or more employees,  prohibits the  use of genetic information in making employment decisions, restricts acquisition of genetic information by employers, and strictly limits the disclosure of genetic information.  Genetic nformation includes (1) an individual’s genetic tests,  (2) genetic tests of family members, (3)  family medical history, (4) genetic services and/or (5) genetic information of a fetus carried by  an individual or a family member.  While the use and disclosure of genetic information is under  the control of the employer, situations may  arise where an employer inadvertently acquires genetic information about an employee.  For example, an FMLA health certification from a  healthcare provider may inadvertently provide the employer with genetic information about the  employee.  The final regulations acknowledge this dilemma and provide a “safe harbor” for employers who inadvertently acquire such information.    In order for the acquisition of genetic information to be considered inadvertent, the employer must direct the individual or healthcare provider from whom it is requesting medical information not to provide genetic information.  The final  regulations provide a sample notice that an employer can use to satisfy the requirement. The final regulations can be found at  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-11-09/pdf/2010-28011.pdf and the sample notice can be found at section 1635.8(b)(1)(i)(B).

Bottom Line

Employees suffering adverse employment consequences are finding creative ways of expanding  their protections.  Employers should exercise due diligence in all employment decisions

© 2011 Dykema Gossett PLLC.

Want your website to get noticed? Break the rules!

From Moiré Marketing Partners, the National Law Review’s Business of Law Guest Bloggers this week, Sean Leenaerts provides some interesting insights on different things to consider for legal websites:

Every time I hear someone in marketing or advertising talk about “best practices” for website design, I roll my eyes.

Now granted, many of the do’s and don’t’s of web design have merit. They’ve been tried, tested and proven to work. And I believe that certain best practices such as ease of navigation, making good use of white space, ensuring that site text is easy to read and building for fast loading times are sarcosanct. But I also believe that best practices are helping to hold marketers back.

The problem I have with best practices is that while they are there to guide everyone in website design, they also cause everyone to look pretty much the same. Adherence to best practices tends to create a formulaic, templated approach to website design. The logos, colors and images on various sites may differ, but they mirror one another in their composition–i.e. logos in the upper left, navigation at the top, copy centered or aligned to the right, vertical scrolling, etc. They’re design conventions that definitely work, but make for few standout websites.

“Okay,” I can hear you saying, “that’s all well and good. But I’m a law/accounting/financial services firm. My site has to be functional, and it should stand out because of my message, not because it looks cool and creative.” All true. But in order to read your message, your site has to be noticed first. While I’m not advocating that professional services firms push the boundaries of convention just for the sake of being different, there are a few rules you can break (or at least bend) in order to make your site stand out from the competition.

Go Horizontal

While usability studies show that most website users prefer to scroll and read text vertically, most of those studies were conducted years ago prior to the ubiquitousness of touch screens, widescreen monitors and many other developments we now take for granted. For touch screens like those on the iPhone/iPad, horizontal navigation is the preferred form of navigation because it’s more ergonomic to move your hand from side to side than up and down. In the case of monitors, screen resolutions have gotten better. We used to design for 1024 x 768 screen resolutions. Now, many screens have resolutions that are 1440 x 900 and they’re much wider, which means that viewers get more real-estate horizontally than they do vertically.

I also think–and this is strictly my opinion–that our brains are better wired to consume information horizontally. Maybe it’s because we’ve been doing it that way offine for so many years. Books are read with a horizontal flip, galleries place paintings and photographs alongside each other, and most of our world is organized horizontally rather than vertically–i.e. our houses are next to each other and we move through the world in a mostly linear fashion.

Chart a New Course

Navigation buttons and links should always be easy to find, but do they always need to be at the top or along the sides of the page? And do they always have to be “buttons”? Unconventional navigation–as long as its easy to find and figure out–has the ability to engage the audience and keep them on your site. A good example of navigation that breaks with traditional design and works well is from the web design firm Hello Goodlooking in Helsinki, Finland:

Here, the navigation buttons are centered on the page and move to the sides when you click on them and open a window. They’re easy to see, easy to understand and make the site simply downright fun to navigate.

Shift Your Perspective

Right-aligned page content is often not seen in a world of centered or left-aligned web pages.  Whenever I come across a page that is aligned uniquely, I have to pause and take a second look. It’s a simple (and safer) way to look unique without having to deviate from other conventions of website design.

Be Bold

Using reversed type, multiple typefaces and unique fonts is generally frowned upon in website design. Yet sites that do all or some of these things tend to grab a lot of attention–and not necessarily for all the wrong reasons. And you don’t have to be a kooky design firm to do it. Morrison Foerster is a law firm whose website is truly unique within the industry. No images, just type–and mostly reversed type, at that. Big, bold headlines. A conversational tone. And don’t even get me started on their careers site, which has to be one of the best in any industry. Most law firms make claims to be different and innovative. MoFo’s website backs it up.

Sometimes breaking with best practices is worthwhile. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that it’s the only way to truly stand out. Striving for innovative design and a better way of web browsing has brought about some great changes in the last decade. Being different to be better is a perfect example of when the rules of best practices should be broken.

Copyright © 2011 Moiré Marketing Partners, Inc. All rights reserved.

Sunshine (State) Surprise – Florida's New E-Verify Requirement

From recent featured guest blogger at the National Law Review, Dawn M. Lurie and Kevin Lashus of Greenberg Traurig provide some needed details on Florida’s new E-Verify Requirement: 

Governor Rick Scott wasted no time in making the state of Florida the 14th the nation to have a mandatory E-Verify requirement. Only minutes after being sworn in, the governor signed his second executive order of the day—the first created the Office of Fiscal Accountability and Regulatory Reform to review regulations in the Sunshine State. Scott had touted ideas about mandating E-Verify during his heated primary fight with former Attorney General Bill McCollum but the magnitude of the actual order caught many by surprise.

Executive Order No. 11-02 requires:

1) All agencies under the direction of the governor to verify the employment eligibility of ALL current and prospective agency employees through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system;

2) All agencies under the direction of the governor to include, as a condition of all state contracts, an express requirement that contractors utilize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system to verify the employment eligibility of:

a) all persons employed during the contract term by the contractor to perform employment duties within Florida; and b) all persons (including subcontractors) assigned by the contractor to perform work pursuant to the contract with the state agency.

b) all persons (including subcontractors) assigned by the contractor to perform work pursuant to the contract with the state agency.

3) Agencies not under the direction of the governor are encouraged to verify the employment eligibility of their current and prospective employees utilizing the E-Verify system, and to require contractors to utilize the E-Verify system to verify the employment eligibility of their employees and subcontractors.

E-Verify is web-based, voluntary program that compares an employee’s Form I-9 information with the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security databases. E-Verify is considered a best practice by the government in terms of immigration compliance, has recently been upgraded to include a photo-matching component for U.S. passports, and will soon debut a driver’s license pilot program. In September of 2009, Congress required that all federal contractors and their subs use E-Verify for new employees (new hires) and all existing employees assigned to a federal contract. This was the only instance where E-Verify was authorized to use to verify a current workforce—until now. Scott’s Executive Order requiring re-verification of current and prospective employees transcends what is legally allowed under current federal law, and is therefore likely to face an immediate court challenge. Prospective employees? Lawyers over at the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (the part of the Department of Justice that enforces the antidiscrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act) are likely reeling from the breadth of the Order. And, the Verification Division at USCIS—the agency responsible for running the E-Verify program—may also be scramblingto determine whether to help Floridian employers implement compliance practices under these terms. As proposed, this represents a third typeof E-Verify for them to administer: normal, FAR-impacted and Florida. It is unclear who will be responsible to pay for development of the application on these terms. How might it work? Does this harken back to the Arizona question again—can the state trump the federal government on immigration requirements?

Ironically, Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee rescinded Rhode Island Executive Order 08-01 that required the state, as well as contractors and vendors doing business with Rhode Island, to register and use E-Verify for all new hires. Chafee called the use of E-Verify a “divisive issue.”

Regardless of the future, Florida’s state agencies now need to be aware of the E-Verify process and should—like all other employers participating in E-Verify—undergo a comprehensive I-9 training, conducted by competent counsel, so that each of the designated E-Verify specialists may become experienced in the intricacies of employment eligibility verification. The verification process has become increasingly complex. Florida’s governor just complicated E-Verify even more. Any missteps by employees charged with verification compliance could be deadly. Employers must recognize that even the most well-intentioned individuals could attract both civil and criminal liability, not only upon themselves, but also upon their employers for failing to follow the verification process accurately and completely.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Is Your Law Firm Capitalizing on Legal Market Opportunities in China? US Firms & China: Managing Your Overseas Presence Mar 21-22 Chicago, IL

China’s rapid economic growth has created numerous opportunities for U.S. law firms to better serve existing and prospective clients. Is your firm well-informed on the challenges and risks associated with establishing an overseas presence?  

Attend This Conference and You Will:

  • Hear from leading U.S. and international experts who have practical experience working in China
  • Learn about the underlying economic, cultural and legal foundations that lead U.S. law firms to conduct business in China
  • Gain knowledge about issues related to revenue, collections, operations, strategic planning and more
  • Understand the business culture in China
  • Discover how to establish strategic alliances with Chinese firms
  • Network with managing partners and firm administrators, and meet with organizations that represent companies and individuals doing business in China
  • Click Here for a detailed agenda

Who Should Attend:

Managing Partners, Lawyers Specializing in International or Intellectual Property Law, and Firm Managers representing law firms of any size who:

  • Represent clients whose legal needs stretch between the U.S. and China, and vice versa
  • Need information and facts regarding doing business in China
  • Thinking about establishing a branch office in China

When & Where:

 

The Crackdown on Employment of Illegal Immigrants Spreads to California

Featured Guest Bloggers this week at the National Law Review are from Greenberg Traurig LLP.  Mahsa Aliaskari and Matthew B. Hayes have written one of the most  comprehensive articles we’ve  come accross reagrding E-Verify – especially as it applies in California.  

Murrieta and Temecula Join Growing List of Southern California Cities Requiring Employers to Use E-Verify

In 2007, Arizona became the first state to pass legislation requiring employers to use the voluntary E-Verify1 program to confirm the employment eligibility of new hires. Since then, Arizona has been the focal point for publicity and legal challenges on attempts by states and localities to crack down on the employment of illegal immigrants. However, Arizona is not the only place where we are seeing state and local action.

Behind the scenes, several Southern California cities have quietly followed Arizona’s lead enacting similar laws mandating use of E-Verify. On July 13, 2010, Temecula joined the growing list of Southern California cities requiring employers to use E-Verify as a condition for maintaining a business license, and on December 20, 2010, Murrieta’s city council moved forward with its plans to institute a similar ordinance. While the State of California has not jumped on the bandwagon, many of its localities are taking action and increasing the burden on companies doing business not only across state lines but across city and county lines.

Given the expansion of immigration laws at the state and local level, it is imperative that employers keep abreast of developments in this area and ensure that their hiring practices are legally compliant in each of the locations they employ workers.

The Trend Toward Making Use of E-Verify Mandatory

The growing trend of states and localities enacting their own legislation to police immigration related-activity has its roots in frustration over the federal government’s inability to effectively address illegal immigration and enact comprehensive immigration reform. While the frustration may be justified, the federal government did not make use of E-Verify mandatory for many reasons. A January of 2010 report2 conducted by Westat researchers found that E-Verify is not immune from identity theft. According to the report 4.1% of those passing E-Verify are not truly authorized workers. More specifically, 54% of unauthorized workers who were run through E-Verify were inaccurately identified as workauthorized. The findings appear to support claims of various groups that have criticized EVerify as being particularly vulnerable to identity theft and fraud. In addition, while improving, there continues to be false positives — while the rate is low there are still U.S. citizens and workauthorized foreign nationals who are denied employment through E-Verify.

What is more alarming though is the opportunity for intentional or unintentional abuse and misuse of E-Verify by employers who violate program rules. There have been reports of employers restricting work assignments, delaying job training, reducing pay or simply not hiring non-U.S. citizens based on database errors. In March of 2010, USCIS posted a fact sheet outlining its agreement and plans to share information with the Office of Special Council3 (OSC) at the Department of Justice. The fact sheet notes that the purpose of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) “is to establish a streamlined process for referring E-Verify matters falling within the other’s jurisdiction. OSC will receive referrals of potential discrimination that come to USCIS; in turn, USCIS will receive from OSC referrals of potential employer misuse of E-Verify that does not fall within DOJ’s enforcement arena.” Potential misuse of the program is cause for concern for all employers and a discrimination suit waiting in the shadows for employers who are not well versed in the proper use of the program. These problems and pitfalls should serve as a warning to states and localities considering and instituting E-Verify mandates.

Regardless of the federal government’s reasons for not mandating the use of the program, many states and localities continue to march forward with their own E-Verify requirements. Employers failing to comply with these E-Verify laws can face substantial penalties, including monetary fines, preclusion from contracting with federal, state and local governments, and suspension or revocation of their business licenses.

While Arizona has been at the forefront of this trend since enacting the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2008,4 Arizona simply paved the way for others. Several other states have since passed or adopted similar legislation. For instance, in 2008 Mississippi passed legislation requiring that all private employers participate in E-Verify, with a phase-in period beginning in 2008 and full participation by 2011. On March 31, 2010, Utah adopted the Private Employer Verification Act that requires employers with 15 or more employees to use E-Verify or another verification system approved by the Department of Homeland Security to confirm the employment eligibility of hew hires. The South Carolina Illegal Immigration Reform Act, passed in 2008, requires all employers to use E-Verify to confirm the eligibility of new hires, or in the alternative, hire only workers who possess or qualify to obtain a South Carolina driver’s license or identification card. The South Carolina law goes even further by authorizing the state to scrutinize a businesses’ hiring records and cite or fine employers found to have unauthorized workers on their payrolls.

California Localities Join in With Their Own E-Verify Mandates

Currently, California does not have any statewide laws mandating the use of E-Verify. However, in the last few years, several cities in Southern California passed local ordinances requiring the use of E-Verify for some or all businesses. These cities and their respective E-Verify requirements include:

  • Mission Viejo: Effective July 1, 2007, the city and employers with city contracts must verify the eligibility of new employees through E-Verify.
  • Palmdale: Effective July 1, 2008, to be eligible for contracts with the city exceeding $50,000, a contractor must be enrolled in E-Verify.
  • Lancaster: Effective December 31, 2009, all employers in the city must use E-Verify to confirm eligibility of new hires. Failure to comply with this requirement can result in business license suspension.
  • Temecula: Effective January 1, 2011, all employers in the city must use E-Verify to confirm the eligibility of new hires as a condition of receiving or maintaining a business license.
  • Murrieta: The City Council is expected to approve an ordinance mandating that all locally operated enterprises use E-Verify. Code enforcement officers would have authority to confirm compliance with EVerify. Enforcement tools will include fines and license revocation.

Constitutional Challenge to State and Local Laws Requiring Use of E-Verify

The constitutionality of state and local governments requiring employers to use E-Verify to confirm employment eligibility is presently unresolved. On December 8, 2010, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments on Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria, No. 09-115. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected in Spring 2011 and will likely determine the fate of similar laws recently enacted throughout several Southern California cities. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA).

Arizona’s law increased the level of state action by taking advantage of an exception to the preemption clause of the Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) relating to licensing laws. The law’s bold move in authorizing Arizona state courts to suspend or revoke business licenses provides the state with an enforcement mechanism not used previously. One of the primary issues in that case is whether the preemption clause applies and if state and local governments — as opposed to only the federal government — can require participation in the E-Verify program. Those challenging Arizona’s E-Verify requirement argue that immigration related legislation falls within the purview of the federal government, consequently laws like that enacted in Arizona conflict with, and are therefore preempted by, federal laws. In this instance referring to federal laws which contemplate that, except in limited circumstances, the use of E-Verify by employers would be voluntary. Prior to the Supreme Court granting review of the case, the Ninth Circuit upheld Arizona’s legislation, finding that it was not preempted by federal law. In light of the decision and arguments upholding the LAWA, it will be interesting to see the outcome of the pending Supreme Court case.

What These Developments Mean for California Employers

Pending the Supreme Court’s decision on the Arizona law, the number of state and local governments enacting laws mandating use of E-Verify is expected to continue and increase. In light of the evolving nature of immigration compliance and the intricacies of E-Verify and the Memorandum of Understanding that employers must agree to and sign when enrolling in E-Verify, it is critical that employers remain apprised of relevant developments, understand the E-Verify laws applicable in each state and city where they employ workers, and ensure their hiring practices are legally compliant. If your company has not yet enrolled in E-Verify and it is being considered either because of legal mandate or as a best practice, it is critical that an internal review of the existing workforce and Form I-9s be conducted first and with experienced counsel. The “culture of compliance” is the theme of the Obama administration and it is spreading to cities and states across the nation. A few proactive steps will go a long way in limiting liabilities and exposure.

Resources

Promoting a Culture of Compliance — Best Practices for your Business

  • Establish a comprehensive immigration compliance policy
  • Conduct in-house audits of Form I-9 documents and company policies, as well as E-Verify if applicable
  • Establish policies, protocols and training for employment verification
  • Diligently verify the identity of job applicants to ensure that they “are who they say they are”
  • Consider use of E-Verify after consultation with experienced immigration compliance counsel
  • Establish protocols for addressing Social Security No-Match letters
  • Establish and maintain safeguards against the use of the I-9 process for unlawful discrimination
  • Create a protocol for immigration compliance related to contractors and subcontractors

ICE utilizes various tools to target employers, particularly those involved with vital infrastructure and national security, as well as the usual suspects – unofficially “targeted” industries – food service, textile, meat/poultry plants and constructions. Employers must take steps now to ensure full compliance or face serious consequences. Actions taken before a government-initiated audit or investigation generally help mitigate damages, reduce exposure and save the company both time and money in the long-run.

1 E-Verify is an Internet-based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security Administration. Its purpose is to enable participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their workforce. Under the system, employers fill out an online form with the information provided by new hires on the Employment Eligibility Verification Form (commonly referred to as the I-9 Form). That information is then cross-referenced with an assortment of government databases to confirm the worker’s employment eligibility.

2 The evaluation was conducted by Westat, a Rockville, Maryland-based social science research firm under contract to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The evaluation was managed by the USCIS Office of Policy and Strategy, independent of the E-Verify program office, which is run by the USCIS Verification Division.

3 OSC is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the INA. The antidiscrimination provisions include violations involving: (1) citizenship status discrimination, (2) national origin discrimination, (3) unfair documentary practices during the employment eligibility verification process (document abuse) and (4) retaliation.

4 That legislation requires all employers in Arizona to use E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of new hires. It penalizes employers who knowingly or intentionally hire illegal immigrants by suspending or revoking their business licenses.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

 

 

ABA Second Annual Electronic Discovery & Digital Evidence Workshop Feb 18-19 San Francisco, CA

The National Law Review is a proud supporter of the ABA’s  Second Annual Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence Practitioners’ Workshop Feb 18-19 in San Francisco, CA.

This practitioners’ workshop will provide in-depth and hands-on education for in-house and retained counsel who are involved in (or who expect to become involved in) litigation involving electronic discovery and digital evidence. Executives and other litigation stakeholders from large and small public and private organizations will also gain invaluable insights on how best to prepare your technical staff and information systems to respond to requests for electronically stored information (ESI). Addressed to intermediate and advanced ESI litigation practitioners, the workshop will be taught by our faculty of leading federal magistrate judges, ESI litigation practitioners, forensics experts, and technology thought leaders, all of whom have significant experience in managing all aspects of ESI litigation. This workshop is unique in that its scope is much broader and deeper than traditional e-discovery courses that address only basic ESI concepts.

The curriculum consists of case studies, a mock trial, keynote sessions and panel discussions with luminaries in the field, and small workshops for practitioners, technologists, and forensic experts. We expect the entire program will be both illuminating and entertaining. Topics will range from ESI search trends and developments to emerging digital evidence issues and ethics to evidentiary issues from a criminal perspective. The sessions will address the key rules from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that impact on e-discovery. There will also be plenty of time for interaction with three federal magistrate judges and for networking at the receptions at the end of each day. 

The Conference will be held at the University of California – Hastings College of Law and  mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE) accreditation has been requested from all states that require continuing legal education.  15.25hours of CLE credit including 1.0 hours of Ethics credit have been requested from those states recognizing a 60-minute credit hour and  18.3 hours of CLE credit including 1.0 hours of Ethics credit have been requested from those states recognizing a 50-minute credit hour.

Click Here for More Information and to Register.