Employers should beware: even during the COVID-19 pandemic, certain employer compliance and obligations continue and others are created.
NOTICE: if your work force is working from home and you have any individuals in H1B or E3 status, there are postings and notice requirements. There are technical rules which must be followed and documents to retain for the future when we return to the worksite.
TRAVEL BAN: the travel ban for entry to the USA from abroad remains in effect. The exception is for US citizens and lawful permanent residents and their families. In addition, many countries around the globe do not permit anyone but nationals of their own countries to enter.
On January 31, 2020, the USCIS issued a new Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification with edition date 10/21/2019. The form is effective immediately.The new Form I-9 is available on the USCIS website at https://www.uscis.gov/i-9.
The form includes the following updates:
Revisions related to the List of Acceptable Documents on Form I-9:
Added the Consular Report of Birth Abroad (Form FS-240) to List C. Employers completing Form I-9 on a computer will be able to select Form FS-240 from the drop-down menus available in List C of Sections 2 and 3. E-Verify users will also be able to select Form FS-240 when creating a case for an employee who has presented this document for Form I-9.
Combined all the certifications of report of birth issued by the Department of State (Form FS-545, Form DS-1350, and Form FS-240) into selection C #2 in List C.
Renumbered all List C documents except the Social Security card. For example, the employment authorization document issued by the Department of Homeland Security on List C changed from List C #8 to List C #7.
In early March, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia revived an Obama-era rule that requires larger companies to report workers’ pay data broken down by gender, race, and ethnicity. Last week, the Court issued an order requiring employers to submit 2018 EEO-1 pay data by September 30, 2019. Just this morning, the EEOC announced it will also collect 2017 data. This means that employers with 100 or more employees (and federal contractors with 50 or more employees) will be required to report their employees’ 2017 and 2018 W-2 compensation information and hours worked by the September deadline. The deadline to submit all other EEO-1 data, such as race and gender information, remains May 31, 2019. Continue reading “2017 and 2018 EEO-1 Pay Data Reporting Requirements Due September 30th”
There are many ways employers may run afoul of the anti-discrimination provisions in U.S. immigration law. As a very clear starting point, the general rule for a long time has been and remains an employer may not make hiring, firing, or recruitment / referral decisions based on a worker’s citizenship status. However, there are notable exceptions and the one relevant here relates to controlled goods.
For these purposes, the definition of controlled goods includes their documentation – typically referred to as technical data – and means those goods which are subject to either the International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) or Export Administration Regulations (EAR) laws and regulations. ITAR is the export license restrictions which regulate military and defense articles, whereas BIS controls other higher tech exports which are subject to export license restrictions. As part of their regulatory regimes, both agencies (and some others of more limited scope) regulate when and how non-U.S. persons may gain access to either the actual good, the technical data or both, and require some form of notice to and pre-approval by the agency. Continue reading “Warning to Employers When Staffing Special Projects”
Workplace immigration law has been the focal point of increased anxiety and uncertainty because of various changes proposed by Executive Order. Discussions have heated up considerably in the offices of human resources professionals and personnel managers, in the break room, around the water cooler, as well as in the news media and on social media. Because the changes have not come in the form of formal regulatory changes through legislation, which require a prescribed notice and comment period (though those may soon be on the way), changes in enforcement priorities and how existing laws are interpreted create an unclear path about who will be impacted and when the new Executive Order priorities will be instituted.
An appellate court in Pennsylvania recently dismissed an employee class action against their employer over a data breach, holding that the employer did not have a duty to protect its employees’ personal information (e.g., names, birth dates, social security numbers, bank information, etc.). While this was a significant victory for employers, non-Pennsylvania employers should temper their enthusiasm because courts in other states, including California, have made clear that employers do have a legal duty to protect their employees’ personal information. These courts have also made clear that the liability for a data breach differs when an employer has legally compliant, written policies for safeguarding private information and responding to data breaches in a timely manner.