How to Protect Your Company From ICE's Increasing Target
A recent raid on a Dallas-area cellphone repair business that netted 280 arrests of individuals charged with unlawfully working in the United States is a strong reminder to employers to vet very thoroughly any staffing agencies with which they contract, immigration law experts told Corporate Counsel.
April 12, 2019 at 03:34 PM
4 minute read
Federal immigration agents raided a cellphone repair business last week in a Dallas suburb and arrested 280 people charged with unlawfully working in the United States.
While U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have conducted such raids in the past, this one, the agency said, is the largest work-site raid at one location in the past 10 years. It also resulted in hundreds of arrests, rather than civil penalties, immigration law experts said.
And how often raids are conducted may not be going down anytime soon, they added.
“If anything, [this incident] is the tip of the iceberg,” said Harry Joe of Dallas-based global business immigration law firm JMA Firm. “The Trump administration is targeting employers because they view employers as the magnets that draw the illegal workers into the country.”
In a statement, CVE Technology Group Inc. in Allen, Texas, said it works with multiple temporary and staffing agencies, all of which are independently owned and operated and contractually accept full responsibility to ensure compliance with all relevant law, including the country's immigration laws.
“We strongly dispute the portrayal of CVE as a culpable party in connection with the raid and the detentions of the hundreds of detained individuals—the vast majority of whom were employed by unrelated third parties, not CVE,” the statement said, adding the company intends to cooperate with all investigative agencies involved in the process. “Based on these facts, we have no reason to believe CVE has engaged in any wrongful action and, instead, we appear to have been caught up in ICE's investigation of staffing companies.”
However, immigration lawyers told Corporate Counsel, employers may bear responsibility for such alleged illegal conduct if they knew or should have known that the agencies were not properly verifying employment eligibility. Thus, the raid is a strong warning and reminder to employers who contract with staffing agencies, they added.
“Staffing agencies are increasingly becoming targets of [Homeland Security Investigations],” Joe said. “Employers must be extremely careful in who they select to use. They really need to do their due diligence to ensure that staffing agencies are in compliance.”
It's important, Joe added, for employers to conduct their own mini-audit of the agency's compliance procedures.
However, when it comes to employment verification, it all comes down to the I-9 process, the means by which employers big and small verify that an individual they plan to hire or continue to employ in the United States is authorized to work here.
“In general, employers tend to view the I-9 employment verification process as a nuisance, but this case demonstrates that compliance with I-9 is a must—an important corporate procedure that has to be taken seriously,” Joe said.
These robust compliance efforts should include internal audits to ensure proper I-9 protocol, including documentation to that effect, said Littler Mendelson shareholder and global mobility and immigration practice group chair Jorge Lopez. Having paperwork to show that the legal and compliance departments did everything correctly and did not intentionally hire someone who ended up being illegal can save a company from being hit with charges that it intentionally violated immigration laws like those facing the Texas company, he added.
“What the government has never liked, under any administration, is intentionally hiring an undocumented worker,” Lopez said.
Matthew Dunn, partner and co-chair of the immigration group at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, said that employers, to better improve I-9 compliance and fill in any gaps in the process, could implement a system that automatically notifies them when an individual's work authorization has expired so that he or she can go through the process again. They also, he added, can “double-down” on I-9 training programs to ensure that “whoever owns the I-9s must be really knowledgeable.”
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 AllApple Battles Multiple Antitrust Class Actions After Being Sued by DOJ
National Security Legislation Would Force Tech Firms Into Complex 'Supply Chain' Audits
Fresh Off Cash Infusion, Maker of Electric Vehicle Chargers Brings Aboard Legal Heavyweight
Trending Stories
- 1Del. Court Holds Stance on Musk's $55.8B Pay Rescission, Awards Shareholder Counsel $345M
- 2Another Senior Boeing Attorney Exits, This One for CLO Post at Jet-Maintenance Company
- 3Bridge the Communication Gap: The Benefits of Having (and Being) a Bilingual Mediator
- 4CFIUS Is Locked and Loaded, but What Lies Ahead for CFIUS Enforcement Activity?
- 5Deluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
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