Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Legal Workforce Act


As with many employment and labor law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out. 

This is one to keep an eye on.


For those unfamiliar with E-Verify, this process checks the Social Security numbers of recently hired employees against the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security Records to ensure the employee is eligible to work in the United States (and not improperly using someone's Social Security number in order to obtain employment.)  E-Verify is often used to ensure that illegal immigrants are not being hired by employers. 

Early last month, three Republican Congressman introduced the Legal Workforce Act (a/k/a H.R. 3711) which would ultimately phase in mandatory E-Verify participation for new hires in six month increments.  That implementation would begin on the date of enactment:

  • Businesses with more than 10,000 employees would have to comply within 6 months;
  • Businesses with 500 to 9,999 employees would have to comply within 12 months;
  • Businesses with 20 to 499 employees would have to comply within 18 months;
  • Businesses with 1 to 19 employees would have to comply within 24 months; and
  • Employees performing "agricultural labor or services" would be subject to an E-Verify check within 30 months.

The bill would also allow employers a one time, 6 month extension of the initial phase in.

Note, the Legal Workforce Act also provides additional changes to E-Verify (such as making E-Verify completely electronic; permit employers to use E-Verify to check the work eligibility of current employees; and grant employers a safe harbor "defense" from prosecution if they use E-Verify in good faith and show that through no fault of their own, they received an incorrect eligibility confirmation; among other proposed revisions).  Whether the Legal Workforce Act will pass as is (or whether some of these revisions to the current way E-Verify operates are cut) remains to be seen.  However, with the three Republican Congressman who proposed this legislation spearheading the effort, it is certainly possible that a Republican controlled Congress will eventually pass this bill.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more