Category Archives: Immigration

Pay Attention to I-9 Forms

Forms and Policies, Hiring, Immigration, , , ,

The I-9 form, on which an employer has to certify that every new employee is eligible to legally be employed in the United States, requires significantly more attention than most employers pay to it. Fill it in casually, inattentively or incorrectly, and that form could cost an employer thousands of dollars per employee.

Missing I-9 Information Leads to Penalties

The Trump Administration recently increased the stakes for employers who are careless with completing I-9 forms. On March 16, 2026, ICE determined in a fact sheet (without notice or proposed rulemaking) that it would treat most missing information on the form as a “substantive violation” rather than a “technical violation.”

In government-speak, that means that an employer who does not assure that the form gets filled out completely and correctly each and every time a new employee is hired faces monetary penalties without any opportunity to cure the minor defects first.

For 30 years, technical violations, such as accidentally missing the employee’s date of birth in Section 1, required that the employer correct the error when it was discovered during an ICE audit. The employer had 10 business days to correct the form and then no penalty was assessed.

The omissions that are highlighted on the form pictured here are the errors that were classified as technical violations but are now considered substantive (penalty-worthy). Many of the boxes that I didn’t highlight have been substantive violations for years.

Under ICE’s new approach, these highlighted violations are subject to immediate fines of $288 to $2861 per form. For example, if ICE finds I-9 forms for ten of your employees are missing information that is now considered substantive, your business could be facing $2880 to $28610 in penalties.

Mistakes are Common but Costly

In my 35+ years of full-time employment law practice, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an employer whose I-9 forms on all current employees and former employees who have left in the last year (or in the last three years, depending on length of tenure) are completely correct. Whether the business owner left the process to a busy manager, an untrained HR director, or even an online service, mistakes and omissions are extremely common.

In the past, businesses relied on a good faith defense when errors were discovered during an ICE audit. Essentially the employer in the past could say, “Yes, we made a few errors filling out the forms, but we will get those corrected immediately because our intent was to never hire someone who is ineligible to work in this country.” Employers in the past also relied on ICE’s understanding that the I-9 form has been revised more than 15 times since the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed in 1987, and every time it gets revised, mistakes are made.

As of March 2026, your good intent, or your unconscious errors, or your delegation to an untrained assistant will not matter. If you fail to complete the I-9 form on a new employee within the required time frame (3 days), if your electronic I-9 system has audit trail problems, if you don’t reverify expired documents promptly or correctly, or you omit any of the information required by the boxes I’ve highlighted for you on the current version of the I-9 form, you can expect trouble when ICE audits your forms.

ICE Audits and Enforcement on the Rise

And ICE is zealously auditing employers in the Texas Panhandle and across the country. In the first half of 2025, ICE sent out Notices of Inspection (audit letters relating to reviewing I-9 forms) to employers at 10 times the rate that it did in 2024. Clearly the approach of the current administration is to target employers using increased fines, criminal penalties and making them into public examples to deter a perceived problem of undocumented workers finding employers willing to look the other way.

Of course, the actual problem ICE is more likely to find is employers who simply made mistakes or didn’t pay enough attention to promptly, completely and correctly filling out I-9 forms each and every time.

Steps Employers Should Take Immediately

What do employers need to do right now to prevent significant fines if ICE comes calling with a Notice of Inspection?

  • Work with an employment attorney now to conduct an internal audit and carefully and legally correct the errors.
  • Train anyone who is going to be in charge of onboarding new employees. It is crucial that the person reviewing the employee legal documents knows how to correctly complete the form and knows what to examine on the identification documents to be able to swear that the employee is eligible to work.
  • If you use an electronic I-9 system for completing and signing the form, a trained HR person still has to physically examine the documents presented by the employee. As an employer, you also need to carefully assess any audit trails created by the electronic system and assure that the system is performing properly. Don’t just take the software company’s word for it. Look at the completed forms yourself and compare the documents that were presented and then copied.  
  • If you are hiring anyone remotely, there are very stringent rules about the I-9 process. You must be enrolled in E-Verify to remotely complete an I-9 on an employee. Alternatively, any employer, whether or not enrolled in E-Verify, may designate an authorized representative (such as an attorney) to meet with and physically examine documents in person on the employer’s behalf. The employer remains responsible for any errors or omissions that the authorized representative makes. And there is a box under “Additional Information” in Section 2 of the I-9 form that must be checked if this remote verification process is used. Failure to check that box is a substantive violation as of March 2026.

Get Ready for Immigration Enforcement Spotlight

Documentation, Hiring, Immigration, , , ,

When President-elect Trump takes office next week, he has promised to launch what his aide Stephen Miller called a “shock and awe blitz” of executive orders and actions that will target millions of immigrants and their families. Employers need to be ready to respond to this renewed emphasis on immigration enforcement.

History of Raids on Businesses

Will there be a return to the kinds of raids on businesses that we saw during President Bush’s second term? Time Magazine reported that President-Elect Trump told the magazine in an interview that he wants a return to United States Customs and Immigration Enforcement (“ICE”) raids of businesses. “The strategy, which he also ramped up in his first term, aims to increase the visibility and enforcement of immigration laws in everyday settings, targeting industries that frequently employ unauthorized workers. Trump has suggested that these raids will not only deter unauthorized employment but also lead to significant labor market shifts, benefiting American workers,” Time reported.

For those who don’t remember one of the most infamous ICE enforcement actions during President Bush’s administration, in December 2006, the giant meatpacking plant formerly owned by Swift and now owned by JBS in the Texas Panhandle town of Cactus, was one of the targets of the largest single-site workforce enforcement action in U.S. history. ICE officers in riot gear and armed with assault rifles arrested nearly 300 workers, more than 10% of the population of Cactus. School children were left with no one to pick them up or care for them at home because both parents were arrested in the raid. The community of Cactus was decimated. Seven months later, ICE batted clean up by conducting another, smaller raid on the same plant in Cactus.

The town of Cactus eventually recovered, but the JBS plant is still almost completely staffed by immigrants, some of whom may be at risk if another raid occurs. Many noncitizen workers there are hired to come to the U.S. to work on legal visas, but President Trump has threated even those migrants who are in the country legally, despite that fact that many workers born in the United States don’t seem to want the jobs offered at JBS. If enforcement actions are actively pursued by ICE in Cactus or elsewhere, it will be up to the employer to prove that each of its workers is legally eligible for employment in the United States.

Holding Business Owners and Managers Responsible

After the furor that such raids caused during the Bush administration, President Obama took a different tact. His administration pursued the employers, not the workers. Some  of the 1100 criminal arrests ICE made in 2008 resulted in charges against owners, managers, supervisors or human resources directors who knowingly hired ineligible workers, failed to diligently check employment eligibility or just ignored the requirements.

The owners and managers of the businesses were targeted because it is the employer’s responsibility to certify that each employee is eligible to legally work in the United States. This is done by reviewing the employee’s eligibility documentation (such as passports, work permits, social security cards, driver’s licenses, etc.) within the first three days of employment and properly completing the Form I-9 to show compliance.

How Employers Can Prepare Now

Let’s say that you don’t believe that you employ any ineligible workers. You may still have documentation problems. Just for incorrectly completing the  I-9’s, even if your workers are all actually eligible to work in the United States, you can be fined up to $2789 per worker.

Continue reading Get Ready for Immigration Enforcement Spotlight →

“Go Back” Comments Are Unlawful in Workplace

Discrimination, Hiring, Immigration, Management, Training, , ,

Telling a person in America to “go back to where you came from” has been considered racist and bigoted for decades in this country founded and built by immigrants, and if you as an employer allow this sentiment to ever be expressed at your business, you can expect a racial or national origin discrimination lawsuit to quickly follow.

Regardless of how the current occupant of the White House talks, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which actually investigates and prosecutes discrimination/harassment claims, has long told employers:

Ethnic slurs and other verbal or physical conduct of nationality are illegal if they are severe or pervasive and created an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment, interfere with work performance, or negatively affect job opportunities. Examples of potentially unlawful conduct includes insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person’s foreign accent or comments like, “Go back to where you came from,” whether made by supervisors or by co-workers.

Facts About Employment Rights of Immigrants Under Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The EEOC didn’t come up with this guidance on its own. It followed dozens of court opinions that examined cases in which an employee was harassed with statements like, “Go back to Africa” addressed to a black worker or “Go back to where you came from” addressed to an employee who appeared to the bigot to have been born somewhere other than America.

For example, our own conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a summary judgment appeal in EEOC v. WC&M Enterprises, Inc., 496 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2007) that an employee born in India (“Rafiq”), who happened to be Muslim, was entitled to prove he was harassed in a severe and pervasive way when his coworkers and managers said, “Why don’t you just go back where you came from”, started calling him “Taliban,” after September 11, and repeatedly referred to him as an Arab (he was Indian).

Rafiq was told, “This is America. That’s the way things work over here. This is not the Islamic country where you came from.” Rafiq’s supervisor even put in a written warning that Rafiq was “acting like a Muslim extremist” and said he could no longer work with Rafiq because of his “militant stance”. The Fifth Circuit found that a jury could “easily infer that [the coworkers’ and supervisor’s] actions were taken on account of Rafiq’s religion and national origin.”

One way the company tried to defend itself was by saying that it couldn’t have discriminated against Rafiq on the basis of national origin, since the workers were apparently too clueless to understand the difference between India and Saudi Arabia or whichever other Muslim country they mistakenly believed Rafiq was from. “The fact that the coworker ignorantly used the wrong derogatory ethnic remark toward the plaintiff is inconsequential.” LaRocca v. Precision Motorcars, Inc., 45 F. Supp.2d 762, 770 (D. Neb. 1999). The Fifth Circuit agreed and concluded in Rafiq’s case, “It is enough to show that the complainant was treated differently because of his or her foreign accent, appearance or physical characteristics.”

As the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has said, telling someone to “go back to where you came from” is “insensitive, ignorant and bigoted.” Williams v. CSX Transportation Co. Inc., 643 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2011). It is your responsibility as an employer to make sure that words to that effect aren’t uttered in your workplace, particularly, but not exclusively, if they are said by anyone in management. “The employer is presumed absolutely liable where harassment is perpetrated by the victim’s supervisor.” Nader v. The Brunalli Construction Co., 2009 WL 724597 (D. Conn. 2002).  

So how do you as an employer assure that this kind of discriminatory and harassing talk isn’t heard in your workplace?

Continue reading “Go Back” Comments Are Unlawful in Workplace →

When an Employee’s Social Security Number is Incorrect (or Fake)

Discrimination, Documentation, Hiring, Immigration,

In 2019, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) is again starting to send “No Match” letters after a seven-year hiatus to employers who reported payroll taxes for an employee under an incorrect (or fake) Social Security number.

What are the legal do’s and don’ts when the company receives an “Employer Correction Notice” (more commonly known as a No Match letter) from the SSA or otherwise finds out that an employee’s Social Security number isn’t accurate?

  1. Don’t overreact. There are a number of reasons that an employee’s Social Security number may have been reported incorrectly, the most common being a transposition of numbers in the company’s system or a name change. Your responsibility as an employer is to carefully address this matter so you don’t violate any discrimination laws, but you also protect the company now that you know there is a problem.
  2. Don’t ignore. You have to act in response to a No Match letter or other knowledge that a Social Security number is invalid. But what actions you need to take should be discussed with your employment lawyer, who you should call immediately upon receipt of the No Match letter.
  3. Don’t fire anybody (yet). The letter itself will say, “You should not use this letter to take any adverse action against an employee, such as laying off, suspending, firing or discriminating against that individual just because his or her name or SSN does not match our records.”
  4. Don’t confuse the Social Security Administration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). No match letters come from SSA and must be addressed through the SSA system. There may be a connection between the incorrect Social Security number and the employee’s eligibility to work in the United States, but you are a long way from making that determination yet when you have just received the No Match letter. On the other hand, ICE may regard a failure on the part of the company to act correctly in response to a No Match letter as an indication of guilt in employing undocumented workers, which is why having an employment lawyer walk you through this process is essential.
  5. Do check your records. Make sure the mistake is not on your end—check that you correctly reported the name and Social Security number that your employee provided to you. If the mistake was yours, notify SSA of the correction.
  6. Do ask the employee to address the problem. After you confirm that the mistake is not on your end, you need to notify the employee in writing that he/she has the responsibility to clear up any discrepancy with SSA by a reasonable deadline (at least 90 days).  Advise your employee that failure to act immediately, to provide the corrected documents in a reasonable time or to provide a good-faith explanation of the problem could later be grounds for termination.
  7. Don’t make an employment eligibility decision yet. There is a dangerous tendency for Texas employers to suspect a Hispanic employee with an incorrect Social Security number might be ineligible to legally work in the United States. This bias could quickly get you sued for discrimination. Give every employee with a mistaken Social Security number a chance to correct that mistake through the SSA procedures. Don’t require an employee to fill out a new I-9 employment eligibility form until the SSA procedure is complete and then only if the employee used the incorrect Social Security number on the first I-9 that the employee filled out.
  8. Don’t turn a blind eye to an affirmative statement of ineligibility by the employee. On the other hand, employees will sometimes tell you when confronted with Social Security number mistake that the employee doesn’t have a Social Security number. Your response should still be, “Talk to SSA and get this corrected.” But if the employee actually says, “I’m not in the United States legally and can’t get a Social Security number because I’m not eligible to work here,” you have to take that admission of ineligibility to work seriously. There is a requirement that employers must terminate any employee immediately upon receiving actual knowledge that the employee is not authorized to work, such as when the employee admits to having submitted false documents for I-9 purposes or to entering the country illegally and never applying for a work permit. This is a red flag warning to call your employment attorney.
  9. Do consider if you need to adopt verification procedures at time of hiring. The SSA provides a verification service that you can use to check Social Security numbers for payroll purposes only (not I-9 purposes) at the time of hiring. Many background checking services will also offer this as part of their criminal background check. But if you are going to start verifying Social Security numbers with new hires, you must be consistent and verify every single employee to whom you make a job offer or your inconsistency can be considered discrimination.
  10. Don’t mistake SSA verification for E-Verify. E-Verify is the federal database for verifying employment eligibility for I-9 purposes. This is where you can find out if your employee really is legal to work in the United States. However, at the present time, there are so many red-tape and technical problems with E-Verify, which has been known to mistakenly block eligible workers, that I do not recommend that employers enroll in that system if you don’t have to (enrollment is mandatory for some employers, such as federal contractors).