Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Oct. 7, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) published a final rule rescinding its safe-harbor procedures for employers that receive “no-match” letters from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) or similar letters from the DHS. Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive No-Match Letter: Rescission, 74 Fed. Reg. 51,447 (Oct. 7, 2009). (Readers may wish to review the articles about the “no-match” rules that have previously appeared in the Employment Law Strategist, which can be found in the February and March 2008 issues.
Background
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the “INA”), it is unlawful for an employer to hire or continue to employ an alien if the employer knows that the alien is not authorized to work in the United States. As a result, employers are required to verify each employee's eligibility to work through use of an Employment Eligibility Verification form (“Form I-9″). If the information provided on the Form I-9 does not correspond with the information of the SSA, employers may receive a “no-match” letter.
The “no-match” letter is meant to prevent the use of false employment verification information and, in furtherance of that objective, the DHS issued regulations outlining the safe-harbor procedures for employers who receive “no-match” letters. However, the DHS regulations were challenged immediately after they were issued, and their implementation was blocked when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction on Oct. 10, 2007. AFL-CIO v. Chertoff, 552 F. Supp. 2d. 999 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
On Aug. 19, 2009, DHS proposed to rescind the regulations outlining the safe-harbor procedures and on October 7, 2009, published final regulations effectuating the rescission. Nonetheless, the INA still requires that employers refrain from hiring or employing an alien with knowledge that such alien is not legally authorized to work in the United States. Therefore, employers should continue to review carefully, and maintain accurate records relating to, each employee's eligibility to work. Employers should also continue their existing procedures for the review of “no-match” letters to avoid potential civil and criminal penalties under the INA.
John D. Shyer, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a labor and employment law partner in the New York office of Latham & Watkins LLP. Austin Ozawa, an associate in the same office, assisted with the preparation of this article.
On Oct. 7, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) published a final rule rescinding its safe-harbor procedures for employers that receive “no-match” letters from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) or similar letters from the DHS. Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive No-Match Letter: Rescission,
Background
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the “INA”), it is unlawful for an employer to hire or continue to employ an alien if the employer knows that the alien is not authorized to work in the United States. As a result, employers are required to verify each employee's eligibility to work through use of an Employment Eligibility Verification form (“Form I-9″). If the information provided on the Form I-9 does not correspond with the information of the SSA, employers may receive a “no-match” letter.
The “no-match” letter is meant to prevent the use of false employment verification information and, in furtherance of that objective, the DHS issued regulations outlining the safe-harbor procedures for employers who receive “no-match” letters. However, the DHS regulations were challenged immediately after they were issued, and their implementation was blocked when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction on Oct. 10, 2007.
On Aug. 19, 2009, DHS proposed to rescind the regulations outlining the safe-harbor procedures and on October 7, 2009, published final regulations effectuating the rescission. Nonetheless, the INA still requires that employers refrain from hiring or employing an alien with knowledge that such alien is not legally authorized to work in the United States. Therefore, employers should continue to review carefully, and maintain accurate records relating to, each employee's eligibility to work. Employers should also continue their existing procedures for the review of “no-match” letters to avoid potential civil and criminal penalties under the INA.
John D. Shyer, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a labor and employment law partner in the
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.