(972) 386-9544
13355 Noel Rd #1940
Dalls, TX 75240
Request a Case Evaluation

Verifying a Mobile Workforce

July 31, 2014

As the construction industry claws its way out of the Great Recession, employers need to be acutely aware of on-going company procedures that pose to threaten their re-acquired stability. At the heart of this introspection is the employer’s workforce itself, without which a company would be useless. As the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) continues to significantly increase its number of, often times, industry-driven audits (in the past four years alone more than 10,000 employers have been audited), it is imperative for employers to verify their workforce. While this may pose no concern for those already established in their culture of compliance, it is essential for all employers to take a second glance at their company’s protocols.

The construction industry revolves around a transient workforce and must adapt to ever-changing worksite locations. Therefore, when headquarters is based in a different location than the worksite, employers must ensure that correct employment verification processes are not abandoned for the sake of convenience. When verifying a mobile workforce the most common error involves Section 2 of the Form I-9. In most circumstances, it is the employer’s responsibility to complete Section 2 within three business days of the employee’s first day of employment. Through this certification process, the employer or the employer’s agent is saddled with the responsibility of inspecting the List A, or List B and List C supporting documents. However, if this employer is not in the same location as the new hire then a fairly straight-forward I-9 process quickly transforms into a complex scenario full of hidden violations.

These violations are caused by none other than the thing that has transformed all employers into fierce competitors who can operate on a global scale: technology. Known for its rapid speed and instantaneous gratification, it would make perfect sense to utilize technological measures in order to verify a remote hire. Have the remote hire take a picture of his or her supporting documents with a cellphone and email/text it to the employer; utilize Skype; or make a copy/scan it to headquarters. While all options make sense, they are nonetheless Form I-9 violations and employers will be held accountable for them. Why? Because Section 2 requires the employer or the employer’s agent to physically examine each original document to ensure its genuineness. Failing to do otherwise can result in significant fines (in 2012, worksite I-9 audit fines were reported at nearly $13 million).

The answer to this frustrating problem involves some degree of creativity and a mandatory company procedure regarding the verification of remote hires. One option is to ensure that an I-9 trained employer representative or agent (e.g. notary public) is available at each worksite location to verify every new hire’s employment authorization. This would allow for the physical inspection of the supporting documents; however, it is imperative to note that the employer and potentially the agent will be liable for the actions taken, thus, correct I-9 training is key. The government has taken note of the difficulties employers face when attempting to verify a mobile workforce but has taken no action. Therefore, a current effort to consider the utilization of post offices to assist in Section 2 completion is underway. Bottom line: employers must have a plan of action for verifying their mobile workforce, which must include correct training, physical examination of supporting documents and periodic auditing practices.

With the number of ICE audits increasing annually, the need to develop and maintain ongoing compliance measures is key towards avoiding costly fines. And as employees become more mobile, developing an acute awareness of acceptable employment verification processes will only ensure continued success in an employer’s remotely linked workforce.

Discrimination on I-9 Verification is Risky Business

Liability: a single word that carries significant weight, and in the construction industry avoiding liability can mean the difference between a good profit and a bad loss. While no business can fully escape it, many have tried to eliminate theircompany’s vulnerability with best practices (e.g. auditing; training; written policies and procedures) in such areas as safety, employment and verification, and construction standards. But when it comes to the hiring of new employees a rigorous methodology can often times have the reverse effect, thereby placing employers at an increased risk of exposure.

Form I-9 discrimination is one such threat that employers must address to avoid significant fines, government oversight, and overall reputation damage. During the Form I-9 verification process the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) specifically prohibits employer discrimination against individuals on the basis of their citizenship or immigration status, or based on an individual’s national origin. While a seemingly straight forward employer regulation, the Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC), which investigates charges of employment discrimination based upon an individual’s citizenship or immigration status, maintains an intricate interpretation that can leave employers questioning every hiring strategy established. And with OSC investigations on the rise due to increased referrals from other enforcement agencies, employers must be acutely aware of their verification protocols.

When completing the Form I-9 the most common employer risk prevention tactic is to specifically request the employee to present a particular supporting document (e.g. U.S. passport or permanent resident card).       Although often done in good faith to ensure valid employment authorization or responding to the employee’s request as to which document to present, OSC perceives this approach as discriminatory in nature because only the employee can legally choose which document to present. In contrast, when an employer requests too many supporting documents (e.g. List A, List B and List C), this constitutes document abuse and can also be construed as discrimination. The employer must strictly follow the I-9 requirements: either a List A or List B and List C document(s).

Additional OSC discriminatory interpretations that take employers by surprise include the following:

  • Form I-9 reverifications are not meant for everyone. Even though permanent resident cards and U.S. passports maintain expiration dates, neither permanent residents nor U.S. citizens need to be reverified for I-9 purposes. To do otherwise exposes an employer to discrimination liability.
  • Job acceptance prior to document production. Getting a jump start on the hiring of authorized workers by requesting employment authorization documents before the individual has accepted the job can mean jumping head first into discrimination litigation. There must be a job offer and an acceptance prior to documents being produced.
  • Future expiration of documents does not preclude a potential hire. Form I-9 identifies three types of employees who qualify as work authorized: U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and work authorized aliens. As long as the employee presents an unexpired employment authorization document, this individual is employment eligible and should not be excluded from hiring endeavors.

The potential for Form I-9 discrimination is enormous if an employer does not properly train its personnel regarding appropriate hiring protocols. Something as simple as an I-9 training session could be the deciding factor between liability prevention and discrimination litigation. And while employer liability will never cease to exist, knowing how to effectively minimize and manage the risk can help the employer avoid substantial civil penalties and possible criminal fines, thereby leading to the establishment of successful verification policies aimed at continued compliance.