Local Lockdown
States and cities pressure employers to bar undocumented workers.
September 30, 2006 at 08:00 PM
26 minute read
Ground zero for the war of words over the future of America's millions of illegal workers was supposed to be the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Instead, it's turning out to be city halls and state capitols across the country.
As the House and Senate reached a stalemate this spring over competing immigration bills, local politicians jumped into the fray, proposing and passing laws and ordinances that attempt to stem the flow of illegal immigrants by cutting off opportunities for jobs, government benefits and housing. Most of the legislation includes penalties for hiring illegals, including fines and disqualification from government contracts.
While many experts predict the new laws will be pre-empted, employers operating in jurisdictions with new immigrant hiring restrictions will feel an immediate impact. And the laws and ordinances take effect at a time when employers are already nervous over highly publicized workplace raids by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and new rules putting pressure on employers that receive Social Security mismatch letters.
“I'm terribly concerned about the direction this is taking,” says Jennifer Brown, partner with Ice Miller. “It's a hardship for employers to muddle through this.”
States Step In
Attorneys who represent companies that depend on immigrant workers say the crackdown by states, localities and ICE puts employers in an untenable situation because they have no way to sponsor existing workers into citizenship.
Laws passed in Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Tennessee this year, for example, prohibit illegal immigrants from working on state contracts. Several states barred illegals from collecting unemployment and worker's compensation, which means employers could be sued for injuries those employees incur on the job.
“Companies didn't see this coming,” says Mary Pivec, partner in Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton. “It's blatantly illegal to engage in this kind of legislation. It's pre-empted by federal law.”
New Colorado laws require companies that have contracts with the state and other governmental units to join the ICE Basic Pilot program, a voluntary federal immigration status verification database that has been criticized for its high error rate. Violators face having their contracts cancelled, with liability for any damages the state may incur as a result, and fines of $5,000 per worker for the first violation and $25,000 per worker for repeat violations.
“You can see they are trying to look toward being challenged on pre-emption, which is why they limited it to workers on state contracts, but at the end of the day they are trying to mandate participation in a program the federal government says is voluntary,” says Tanya Lee, a member of Littler Mendelson's corporate migration law group.
For contractors, that means making tough decisions between risking losing employees whose immigration status can't be verified, pulling out of the contract or taking the state to court.
“I would sue,” Pivec says, “but not everyone has the resources to do that.”
The Georgia law requiring state contractors to verify employees through Basic Pilot also is riddled with holes, says David Whitlock, partner at Fisher & Phillips. Those include the lack of an enforcement provision and requiring compliance by companies with 500 employees without saying whether that means 500 in Georgia, 500 in the country or 500 working on the contract.
Problematic Ordinances
Even more problematic are local immigration ordinances, which began popping up on municipal governments' agendas soon after Hazleton, Penn., passed one in July. Hazleton officials designed the ordinance to drive aliens out of the town of 22,000 people by denying business permits and city contracts to employers found to have illegals in their workforce. Hazleton's population is about one-third Hispanic. Riverside, N.J.–population 8,000–quickly followed Hazleton's lead with a similar ordinance.
Both ordinances were challenged in separate federal suits filed Aug. 15. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and the ACLU filed suit on behalf of 11 Hazleton residents and business owners.
“The fundamental argument is that no political subdivision can enact laws that affect immigration,” says David Vaida, an Allentown, Pa., attorney who helped draft the suit. “That is the federal government's exclusive province.”
Vaida says the ordinance, if allowed to stand, would have a chilling effect on businesses in Hazleton, because a substantial portion of the labor force would leave town.
The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders and a local church challenged the Riverside ordinance. Citing a 1976 case, Delanas v. Bica, the plaintiffs argued, “The Supreme Court has long recognized that the regulation of immigration 'is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.'” They also cited federal law that “expressly pre-empts any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions upon those who employ unauthorized aliens.”
At press time, local ordinances modeled on Hazleton's were pending in Palm Bay, Fla.; San Bernadino and Escondido, Calif.; and the Pennsylvania towns of Allentown, Shenandoah and Mount Pocono. In Suffolk County, N.Y., proposed legislation calls for fines and up to six months in jail for county contractors that hire illegal aliens.
“These ordinances are being passed without a lot of thought but with a lot of politics,” says Jorge Lopez, partner at Jackson Lewis. “What the statutes leave vague is who is illegal and how you determine it.”
Increase Vigilance
Until the courts act on challenges to the local laws or Congress enacts a new federal policy (see SIDEBAR), employers should be more vigilant about hiring procedures, and audit their I-9 forms. This will be especially important for companies in states and localities that mandate employment verification, but should be a priority for all employers that hire immigrants.
“Our word to employers is that you need to get your house in order,” Whitlock says.
Brown says I-9 audits frequently turn up minor errors, such as failure to date the form, that create unnecessary liabilities. Training is key to ensure employees with responsibility for completing I-9s for new hires understand the rules.
“The first thing an employer should do is make sure its I-9s are as complete as possible,” Brown says.
——
[SIDEBAR]
Legislative Logjam
Congress' inability thus far to pass a federal immigration bill is the impetus behind the state and local laws that seek to control the hiring of illegal immigrants. Washington insiders warn that the impasse will likely continue through the end of the year.
More troubling still is the likelihood that when a federal bill passes, it may order deportation of the illegal aliens already working here. The House passed such an “enforcement-only” bill in December 2005, and House leaders won't compromise with the Senate, which adopted a bill that included a guest worker program in May. That program would offer undocumented workers legalized status if they pay a fine and back taxes and learn English.
Mary Pivec, partner in Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, says the “smart money” in Washington is on passage of an enforcement-only bill in the session after the November election. But others doubt this Congress will act. “Nothing will happen this year at the federal level,” says David Whitlock, partner in Fisher & Phillips. “I don't think it's possible to get a compromise.”
Ground zero for the war of words over the future of America's millions of illegal workers was supposed to be the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Instead, it's turning out to be city halls and state capitols across the country.
As the House and Senate reached a stalemate this spring over competing immigration bills, local politicians jumped into the fray, proposing and passing laws and ordinances that attempt to stem the flow of illegal immigrants by cutting off opportunities for jobs, government benefits and housing. Most of the legislation includes penalties for hiring illegals, including fines and disqualification from government contracts.
While many experts predict the new laws will be pre-empted, employers operating in jurisdictions with new immigrant hiring restrictions will feel an immediate impact. And the laws and ordinances take effect at a time when employers are already nervous over highly publicized workplace raids by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and new rules putting pressure on employers that receive Social Security mismatch letters.
“I'm terribly concerned about the direction this is taking,” says Jennifer Brown, partner with
States Step In
Attorneys who represent companies that depend on immigrant workers say the crackdown by states, localities and ICE puts employers in an untenable situation because they have no way to sponsor existing workers into citizenship.
Laws passed in Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Tennessee this year, for example, prohibit illegal immigrants from working on state contracts. Several states barred illegals from collecting unemployment and worker's compensation, which means employers could be sued for injuries those employees incur on the job.
“Companies didn't see this coming,” says Mary Pivec, partner in
New Colorado laws require companies that have contracts with the state and other governmental units to join the ICE Basic Pilot program, a voluntary federal immigration status verification database that has been criticized for its high error rate. Violators face having their contracts cancelled, with liability for any damages the state may incur as a result, and fines of $5,000 per worker for the first violation and $25,000 per worker for repeat violations.
“You can see they are trying to look toward being challenged on pre-emption, which is why they limited it to workers on state contracts, but at the end of the day they are trying to mandate participation in a program the federal government says is voluntary,” says Tanya Lee, a member of
For contractors, that means making tough decisions between risking losing employees whose immigration status can't be verified, pulling out of the contract or taking the state to court.
“I would sue,” Pivec says, “but not everyone has the resources to do that.”
The Georgia law requiring state contractors to verify employees through Basic Pilot also is riddled with holes, says David Whitlock, partner at
Problematic Ordinances
Even more problematic are local immigration ordinances, which began popping up on municipal governments' agendas soon after Hazleton, Penn., passed one in July. Hazleton officials designed the ordinance to drive aliens out of the town of 22,000 people by denying business permits and city contracts to employers found to have illegals in their workforce. Hazleton's population is about one-third Hispanic. Riverside, N.J.–population 8,000–quickly followed Hazleton's lead with a similar ordinance.
Both ordinances were challenged in separate federal suits filed Aug. 15. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and the ACLU filed suit on behalf of 11 Hazleton residents and business owners.
“The fundamental argument is that no political subdivision can enact laws that affect immigration,” says David Vaida, an Allentown, Pa., attorney who helped draft the suit. “That is the federal government's exclusive province.”
Vaida says the ordinance, if allowed to stand, would have a chilling effect on businesses in Hazleton, because a substantial portion of the labor force would leave town.
The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders and a local church challenged the Riverside ordinance. Citing a 1976 case, Delanas v. Bica, the plaintiffs argued, “The Supreme Court has long recognized that the regulation of immigration 'is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.'” They also cited federal law that “expressly pre-empts any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions upon those who employ unauthorized aliens.”
At press time, local ordinances modeled on Hazleton's were pending in Palm Bay, Fla.; San Bernadino and Escondido, Calif.; and the Pennsylvania towns of Allentown, Shenandoah and Mount Pocono. In Suffolk County, N.Y., proposed legislation calls for fines and up to six months in jail for county contractors that hire illegal aliens.
“These ordinances are being passed without a lot of thought but with a lot of politics,” says Jorge Lopez, partner at
Increase Vigilance
Until the courts act on challenges to the local laws or Congress enacts a new federal policy (see SIDEBAR), employers should be more vigilant about hiring procedures, and audit their I-9 forms. This will be especially important for companies in states and localities that mandate employment verification, but should be a priority for all employers that hire immigrants.
“Our word to employers is that you need to get your house in order,” Whitlock says.
Brown says I-9 audits frequently turn up minor errors, such as failure to date the form, that create unnecessary liabilities. Training is key to ensure employees with responsibility for completing I-9s for new hires understand the rules.
“The first thing an employer should do is make sure its I-9s are as complete as possible,” Brown says.
——
[SIDEBAR]
Legislative Logjam
Congress' inability thus far to pass a federal immigration bill is the impetus behind the state and local laws that seek to control the hiring of illegal immigrants. Washington insiders warn that the impasse will likely continue through the end of the year.
More troubling still is the likelihood that when a federal bill passes, it may order deportation of the illegal aliens already working here. The House passed such an “enforcement-only” bill in December 2005, and House leaders won't compromise with the Senate, which adopted a bill that included a guest worker program in May. That program would offer undocumented workers legalized status if they pay a fine and back taxes and learn English.
Mary Pivec, partner in
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Senate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250