Law and Justice

Posts Tagged ‘Employment’

There are many times in a person’s life when they’ll need to find an attorney to help them get through a tough time in their life. Many people will want to find an attorney in Costa Rica. The process for finding a law firm in Costa Rica is pretty much the same regardless if you’re dealing with business or personal matters. It is extremely important to remember that each attorney in Costa Rica will specialize in a specific field. You’ll want to find a lawyer that specializes in the specific field that you’re problems can be categorized within whether that be Business and Employment, Family and Individual or Accident and Injury.

 

It is extremely important to a law firm in Costa Rica that has the skills and experience to win your case. It is equally as important to choose an attorney in Costa Rica that you are comfortable and confident with. Choosing a law firm in Costa Rica that intimidates you will make it difficult for you to ask questions and discuss your problems with the attorney because you’ll be so uncomfortable. The first step to finding the right attorney is to research your own legal needs. You’ll want to consider your current personal and business situations. You should complete this step before even starting to research lawyers.

 

When trying to find a law firm in Costa Rica, it is a good idea to ask for referrals from people who you have trust in. Make sure that the person that you ask has worked with attorneys in the past and that they have encountered legal matters that you are going to encounter sometime in the future. You should go online and research an attorney in Costa Rica or two. You should look for a number of things when you visiting an attorney’s website such as the attorney’s practice specialties, credentials, articles, clients, results, affiliations, and personality. After finding a few top prospects you should interview them.

 

You should interview the attorney in Costa Rica in their offices if possible. When checking out the law firm in Costa Rica, make sure that you check out their environment as well as their style. You should also check out some of their team members. You should also ask each attorney for at least two or three client references who have gone through the same situations that you are going to be going through. This will help you determine whether or not the law firm in Costa Rica was able to help these clients which will give you an idea whether or not they’ll be able to help you.

 

There are a number of questions that you should ask yourself when trying to select an attorney in Costa Rica. You should ask yourself whether or not the lawyer has the experience and skills needed to handle your case. You should also ask yourself whether or not you’ll be comfortable working closely with this attorney. You should also make sure that you understand the lawyer’s explanation of what your case involves. You will also want to choose an attorney that knows exactly what you want to gain with your case and will give their all to make sure that you get it.

 

Over the past 30 years, Los Angeles has made significant steps in protecting the employment rights of its residents especially that of the lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender.

 

This includes their right against discrimination. Los Angeles is one county in California whose economy is booming. Economic stability means more jobs. More jobs means more employment disputes filed in court.

 

As employment cases are one of the most common court battles in Los Angeles, its residents are rest assured of the best legal assistance. People who want to pursue legal options may consider Los Angeles’ employment law firms which specifically handle employment-related disputes.

 

Employment cases include discrimination, non-payment of overtime pay, denial of leave benefits, termination, retaliation, breach of employment contract and other disputes.

 

How to Choose the Right Firm

 

Engaging the services of a law firm increases ones advantage and confidence that his or her case would be given ample attention. One will be assured of the best services than hiring a lawyer not associated with any firm.

 

In selecting a firm, several considerations must be taken into account. These are some of them:

 

1. Choose a firm that focuses on employment cases.

 

Employment disputes are best handled by lawyers with expertise in the area of employment and labor law. A firm’s concentration in one area means a highly developed level of expertise and capability in said field. Thus, it is assured that it will give better service, better representation and better results for its clients.

 

2. Consider the firm’s financial and staff resources.

 

Choose a firm that has considerable number of seasoned lawyers and support staff. A firm must have resources to do well against well-financed insurance companies and corporate defendants.

 

A firm or a lawyer who does not have enough resources may be pressed to settle cases too early or for fewer amounts.

 

3. Select a firm that has top caliber attorneys in its list.

 

Choose a firm that has a top team of experienced and expert lawyers dedicated only to the representation of illegally dismissed employees or against abusive employers. Consider firms with lawyers who have successfully prosecuted a huge number of employment cases.

 

4. Check firm’s record of accomplishment.

 

Determine the record of the firm. Check if how many cases it has won or how much amount it acquired in settlements. Usually, referrals come from clients who have been satisfied of its services.

Choose a firm with exceptional experience, expertise, and ample resources.

 

5. Select a firm that is committed to its clients.

 

Law firm with lawyers who are passionate about their job are most likely to do well. Determine if their operations are designed with various levels of quality control to ensure that its legal representation is superior.

 

A firm should also address its clients’ needs and concerns promptly and satisfactorily. It should give an enthusiastic and aggressive work on behalf of the clients. At the same time, it must provide an encouraging relationship with its clients and render caring and compassionate services.

 

6. Choose a firm whose lawyer appears regularly before the judge.

 

Regular appearance before the court is a great assurance that your case is being followed up and handled eagerly.

 

Our Los Angeles law firm handles employment discrimination and other related concerns. You can seek the assistance of our skilled employment lawyers by logging on to http://www.mesrianilaw.com/Los-Angeles-Employment-Lawyers.html and have your case evaluated.

 

 

 

Incoming search terms:

www thetexascriminallawattorneys com (9)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/index html (3)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-criminal-attorney (2)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-criminal-lawyers (2)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-dui-lawyers (2)

We work to live; we do not live to work.

 

As early as early adulthood, employment is one of this life’s major concerns. Actually, there are thousands federal laws and state statutes, administrative regulations and jurisprudence in the United States which deal with labor or employment law.

 

Employment law is very broad. But the most important specific areas include the following:

 

Collective bargaining

Employment discrimination

Unemployment compensation

Pension

Workplace safety

Workmen’s compensation

 

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

 

The National Labor Relations Act is the main law governing collective bargaining. It expressly gives employees the right to collectively bargain and join unions. It is applicable to most non-agricultural employees and employers who are engage in some aspects of intestate commerce.

 

Collective bargaining is composed of negotiations between the employees and the employer to determine the conditions of employment such as wages, work hours and compensation and benefits, among others.

 

Most states have laws, which further regulate collective bargaining and make collective agreements enforceable under state law.

 

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

 

Discrimination laws prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, religion, national or ethnic origin, physical disability, age and sexual preference by employers.

Bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, compensation, and various types of harassment are discriminatory practices.

 

The Federal Constitution and some state constitutions give additional protection where the employer is a government agency or the government has taken significant steps to foster the discriminatory practice of the employer.

 

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

 

This is insurance for those who are unemployed because they are terminated without the fault of their own. Monetary payments are given to terminated employees until such time that they find a new job.

 

PENSIONS

 

Employees continuously receive this monetary compensation from their employers even after retirement.

 

There are two main forms of pensions, they are:

 

defined benefit plan

defined contribution plan

 

Defined benefits plan is based on the length of the employee’s service and his wages.

Defined contribution plan is based on the employer’s regular deposit into an account secured for each employee.

 

WORKPLACE SAFETY

 

Workplace safety laws establish regulations designed to eliminate personal injuries and illnesses from happening in the workplace. These laws are primarily composed of federal and state statutes.

 

The Occupational and Safety Health Act (OSHA) is the main law which protects the health and safety of workers in the workplace. It is Congress which enacted this law.

All private employers who are engaged in interstate commerce are subject to the regulations promulgated under OSHA.

 

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

 

For those who are injured or disabled on the job, these laws give them fixed monetary award as a matter of right without the need of an action in courts.

 

Under these laws, dependents of workers who were killed while working or suffered work-related illnesses and died will also be given benefits.

 

While majority of these laws can be considered pro-employees, some were also designed to protect employers by limiting the amount an injured employee may received from the former.

 

 

 

To help you with issues related to your employment, you can consult with our experienced http://www.mesrianilaw.com/Los-Angeles-Employment-Lawyers.html or visit our website to avail of our free case analysis.

 

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW BASICS FOR HAWAII EMPLOYERS:  ILLINOIS RULING HIGHLIGHTS THE IMPORTANCE OF POLICIES AND TRAINING TO HAWAII EMPLOYERS  

It is well established now under federal Title VII law that an employer is liable for actionable sexual harassment caused by a supervisor with “immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee.”  However, in cases where the employee does not suffer a “tangible employment action,” such as discharge, demotion, or an unfavorable reassignment, there is an affirmative defense that an employer may raise to avoid Title VII liability and damages.  

Under such affirmative defense whether an employer has an anti-harassment policy is relevant evidence.  Also important is effective supervisory training and training of employees on the harassment policy and complaint procedure.

Training and educational programs for all employees take on an even higher degree of importance under Hawaii state law, HRS Chapter 378.  State law currently is interpreted by the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission (“HCRC”) as mandating strict liability for sexual harassment committed by supervisors. 

While the Hawaii Supreme Court has not addressed the HCRC’s interpretation of HRS Chapter 378 a recent Illinois Supreme Court decision upheld a Illinois Human Rights Commission ruling addressing a regulation similar to the HCRC’s–that an employer was strictly liable for a supervisor’s harassing conduct under Illinois state law even though the supervisor did not even have direct supervisory authority over the Complainant.

The April 16, 2009 Illinois decision will certainly be persuasive authority to a Hawaii Supreme Court faced with interpreting the HCRC’s regulation.  Accordingly, it is critical that Hawaii employers understand the importance of having an effective policy and company-wide training program on not only a defense to a sexual harassment claim, but prevention.

I.          The Importance of Having an Effective Harassment Policy

A.                The Faragher/Ellerth Defense

Having an effective sexual harassment policy and training program will greatly increase the chance of avoiding liability under the affirmative defense for sexual harassment claims recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (“Faragher”) and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 523 U.S. 742 (1998) (“Ellerth”). 

Where alleged harassment by a supervisor does not culminate in an adverse (“tangible”) employment decision, the employer may avoid liability by showing that: (1) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassing behavior; and (2) the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer to avoid harm.  “A tangible employment action constitutes a significant change in employment status such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.”  Ellerth, supra.

The importance of the Faragher/Ellerth defense was significantly increased by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004), which held that the defense is available in constructive discharge cases unless the plaintiff quits in a reasonable response to an employer-sanctioned adverse action of an official nature, such as a demotion or a cut in pay.

A zero-tolerance harassment policy must fit the environment and employees.  The Ellerth court stated:

While proof that an employer had promulgated an antiharassment policy with complaint procedure is not necessary in every instance as a matter of law, the need for a stated policy suitable to the employment circumstances may appropriately be addressed in any case when litigating the first element of the defense.  The policy should be written in plain English, so that all employees regardless of their educational level or background can understand it … [a] policy should include a clear and precise definition of unlawful harassment so that employees know what type of conduct is prohibited by the policy and will be able to recognize that conduct should it occur.

Accordingly, if the alleged harasser has supervisory authority over the victim, the employer will be held automatically liable for any harassment committed by the supervisor unless the employer is able to successfully raise the affirmative defense. 

B.        Tips On Drafting a Zero-Tolerance Policy and Complaint Procedure. 

(1)               Write in simple English.

(2)               Include a clear definition and examples of prohibited conduct and make it broad enough to prohibit all forms of harassment.

(3)               State the company’s “zero-tolerance” philosophy in the policy regarding all forms of harassment,

(4)               Designate at least two specially trained managers who will be responsible for investigating harassment complaints for the company. 

(5)               Determine the complaint procedure that will be used to investigate complaints of harassment by supervisory employees, co-workers and outsiders. 

(6)               Provide a “clear chain of communication,” allowing employees to step outside of the normal hierarchy in the event the supervisor is the harasser and consider having a toll-free number employees can call.

(7)               State that employees who report prohibited conduct will be protected from retaliation.

(8)               State that the employer will promptly investigate the matter in an objective and discrete manner.

(9)               Provide the form of disciplinary action to which offenders can expect to be subjected.

(10)           State that the employer will also take remedial action.

(11)           Train your management employees and line employees on the policy and procedure. 

(12)           Have each employee sign an acknowledgment form that they have received a copy of the policy and procedure, and that they have received training on the harassment policy. 

C.        The Faragher/Ellerth Defense and Hawaii Law

Like Title VII, the Hawaii Employment Practices Act prohibits discriminating against individuals in virtually all aspects of employment.  However, it remains an open question whether an employer, under Hawaii state law, can assert the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense. 

Currently, under regulations promulgated by the HCRC, the state agency charged with the enforcing and interpreting Hawaii’s Employment Practices Act, strict liability would apply to a supervisor’s harassment of a subordinate regardless of whether tangible action is taken:

§12-46-109 Sexual harassment.

(a)        Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of chapter 378, HRS. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct or visual forms of harassment of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:

(1)        Submission to that conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment; or

(2)        Submission to or rejection of that conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting that individual; or

(3)        That conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

(b)        In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment, the commission will look at the record as a whole and at the totality of the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. The determination of the legality of a particular action will be made from the facts, on a case by case basis.

(c)        An employer shall be responsible for its acts and those of its agents and supervisory employees with respect to sexual harassment regardless of whether the specific acts complained of were authorized or even forbidden, and regardless of whether the employer or other covered entity knew or should have known of their occurrence. The commission will examine the circumstances of the particular employment relationship and the job functions performed by the individual in determining whether an individual acted in either a supervisory or agency capacity.

(d)       With respect to conduct between employees, an employer shall be responsible for acts of sexual harassment in the workplace where the employer or its agents or supervisory employees knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employee who has been sexually harassed on the job by a co-worker should inform the employer, its agent, or supervisory employee of the harassment; however, an employee’s failure to give such notice may not be an affirmative defense.

D.        Problem Areas for Employers

* Inadequate complaint procedure

* Failure to disseminate policy

* Employer on notice of harassment

 * Failure to promptly investigate

 * Failure to take appropriate disciplinary action

 * Failure to apply it even-handedly

 * Failure to review and revise when necessary

 * Failure to provide training

E.         Illinois Supreme Court Decision a Foreshadowing of Hawaii Law?

In Sangamon Cty Sheriff’s Dep’t v. The Illinois Human Rights Comm’n, Nos. 105517, 105518 cons. (Ill. Apr. 16, 2009), decided on April 16, 2009, the Illinois Supreme Court gave the HCRC direct support of the HCRC’s own interpretation of HRS Chapter 378.

The Sangamon decision holds Illinois employers strictly liable for sexual harassment by any of their management or supervisory personnel, and, as noted by the dissent, “imposes a standard of liability which appears to be without precedent in any jurisdiction of the United States.”

In that case employee Feleccia filed a sexual harassment claim against employer Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department and Ron Yanor, who was a supervisor, but was not Feleccia’s direct supervisor.  The Illinois Human Rights Commission ruled that the Sheriff’s Department was strictly liable for Yanor’s conduct under the Act because Yanor was a supervisor. The Illinois appellate court reversed, and Feleccia and the Commission appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and confirmed the Commission’s decision. In a 4-2 ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed that the Sheriff’s Department could be held strictly liable in such circumstances.  The basis of the decision was the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute, which states that “an employer shall be responsible for sexual harassment of the employer’s employees by nonemployees or nonmanagerial and nonsupervisory employees only if the employer becomes aware of the conduct and fails to take reasonable corrective measures.”

According to the Court, the statute is unambiguous” and only excludes “nonemployees” and “nonmanagerial or nonsupervisory employees” from its strict liability standard.  As such, the Court found “[t]here is no language in the Act that limits the employer’s liability based on the harasser’s relationship to the victim.”  The Court rejected the employer’s argument that federal case law should apply to the case.

II.        The Importance of Conducting EEO Training

Of course, in Hawaii the HCRC has merely interpreted HRS Chapter 378’s statutory language to impose strict liability for supervisory harassment.  Unlike the Illinois statute interpreted by the Illinois Supreme Court it is reasonable to argue that Hawaii statutory law is ambiguous and not straightforward. 

Nevertheless, the HCRC is charged with the interpretation and enforcement of HRS Chapter 378 and it does not bode well for Hawaii employers that another state’s high court is willing to impose what some would consider harsh penalties on the employer defendant.  Accordingly, employers in Hawaii should redouble its efforts to train supervisors AND employees regularly on preventing discrimination and harassment in the workplace.  Training should include the consequences of violating company policy.

Training employees reduces the likelihood that inappropriate conduct will be engaged in or tolerated at a level that can create a hostile environment.  See Arquero v. Hilton Hawaiian Village, 104 Hawai’i 423, 91 P.3d 505 (2004) (coworker pinched buttocks of the plaintiff on two occasions); Nelson v. University of Hawai’i, 97 Hawai’i 376, 38 P.3d 95 (2001) (verbal harassment).

Second, in the event that inappropriate conduct takes place, employees who are offended will be substantially more likely to use the employer’s complaint procedure, thereby permitting the employer to remedy the situation and avoid having a lawsuit filed against it.

Lastly, training is a tool for prevention and reducing the potential of supervisory harassment.

A.        Training as a Tool for Prevention

The EEOC’s Policy Guidance on Sexual Harassment states:

An employer should ensure that its supervisors and managers understand their responsibilities under the organization’s anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure. Periodic training of those individuals can help achieve that result.  Such training should explain the types of conduct that violate the employer’s anti-harassment policy; the seriousness of the policy; the responsibilities of supervisors and managers when they learn of alleged harassment; and the prohibition against retaliation.

The HCRC regulations state that “prevention is the best tool for the elimination of sexual harassment.  Employers should affirmatively raise the subject, express strong disapproval, develop appropriate sanctions, inform employees of their right to raise and how to raise the issue of sexual harassment, and take any other steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment from occurring.”  §12-46-109(g).

As part of its settlements against employers, the EEOC and HCRC have chosen mandatory training as one of its primary responses through the use of consent decrees requiring organizations to conduct training and ensure policy compliance.

In 2004, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1825, requiring all employers with fifty or more employees to conduct compulsory sexual harassment training for all of its supervisory employees by January of 2006, thus supporting the EEOC and HCRC’s position that training and education is the best tool for prevention.  Under the California law, the training must re-occur every two years, and all new supervisors brought in after the original round of training must go through the program within six months of their arrival. 

Managers who are aware of the implications of sexual harassment may be less likely to take official action they realize will create vicarious liability for the organization – this may preserve the employer’s right to the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense in a case of constructive discharge.  Further, managers who are aware of how to proceed with complaints from employees about harassment are more likely to intervene with an appropriate employer response thus making a stronger showing under the first prong of the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.

Finally, as noted throughout this article training can be an effective tool to combat inappropriate behavior by supervisors and to reduce risks under state law—especially to the extent it is interpreted similar to the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision.

B.                 Training and the Faragher/Ellerth Defense

Conducting training will greatly increase the chance of avoiding liability under the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.  The importance of this defense was significantly increased by the Suders decision, which held that the defense is available in constructive discharge cases unless the plaintiff quits in a reasonable response to an employer-sanctioned adverse action of an official nature, such as a demotion or a cut in pay.

The training of rank and file employees should be documented and if it is to be conducted on a regular basis, can include a certification by the employee that he or she has not been subject to any policy violations since the last training.

C.        Training and Damages Issues Under Hawaii Law

Generally, individuals cannot be found liable for violations under federal law.  Under Hawaii law, however, courts may award unlimited punitive and compensatory damages. 

Significantly, unlike under Title VII individuals can be held liable for violations of Hawaii’s Employment Practices Act.  See HRS §378-1 (defining “employer” to include “any person”) and §378-2 (3) (making it unlawful for any “person” to “aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the discriminatory practices forbidden by this part, or to attempt to do so.”); Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, 96 Hawai’i 408; 32 P.3d 52, 93-94 (2001) (holding individuals may be found liable under Hawai’i Employment Practices law).

Thus, training employees may alert them to the financial risks they take when they engage in behaviors prohibited by Hawaii law.

D.        Training to Reduce Exposure to Punitive Damages

In Kolstad v. American Dental Association, the Court held that “in the punitive damages context, an employer may not be vicariously liable for the discriminatory employment decisions of managerial agents where these decisions are contrary to the employer’s ‘good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII.’”  Accordingly, compliance efforts are both necessary and sufficient to avoid liability for punitive damages.

Roman Amaguin, Esq.; http://www.virtualhawaiiemploymentlawyer.com; http://www.amaguinlaw.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incoming search terms:

is the ellerth faragher affirmative defense still available to an illinois employer after the sangamon county ruling (1)

Many states have enacted “mini-I-9” laws. Employers, especially companies that operate in more than one state, must closely monitor their compliance with the employment eligibility and verification laws for each state in which they do business.

The most common regulation states have imposed on businesses in recent years is requiring employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm workers’ immigration status and employment eligibility or work authorization, specifically illegal immigrant employment eligibility, work authorization and immigration status.

E-Verify is an Internet-based system operated by Department of Homeland Security (DHS/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA). E-Verify is currently free to employers and is available in all 50 states. E-Verify provides an automated link to federal databases to help employers determine employment eligibility or work authorization of new hires and the validity of their Social Security numbers.

Employers or “Designated Agents” (e.g., payroll companies) must register online and agree to the terms of participation to use E-Verify. [Registration includes agreeing to the DHS/Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). A discussion of the ICE E-Verify MOU is outside the scope of this post.]

E-Verify will soon be required of all federal contractors. DHS is now promulgating “final” E-Verify regs. I present an E-Verify overview and update in this post.

(The National Conference of State Legislatures does a remarkable job of monitoring these new developments and I include a variation of their chart and summary of the new state legislation below.)

Review of Relevant State Laws

State Laws Requiring Use of E-Verify

Arizona
Arizona

The Arizona Fair and Legal Employment Act (HB 2779), enacted in 2007, prohibits employers from knowingly hiring unauthorized workers and requires all employers to use the Basic Pilot Program to verify employment eligibility. It establishes substantial penalties and threatens noncompliant employers with suspension and potential revocation of their business licenses. Effective date Jan. 1, 2008.

Colorado
Colorado HB 1343 (signed 6/6/2006) prohibits state agencies from entering into contract agreements with contractors who knowingly employ illegal immigrants and requires prospective contractors to verify legal work status of all employees. The contractor must confirm that the Basic Pilot Program has been used to verify the status of all employees. If the contractor discovers that an illegal alien is employed, the contractor must alert the state agency within 3 days.

Georgia
The Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act, SB 529, covered employment, enforcement, and benefits and was signed by the Governor on April 17, 2006. The bill requires public employers, contractors and subcontractors with 500 or more employees to participate in E-Verify for all new employees beginning July 1, 2007. The law is phased in for public employers, contractors and subcontractors with 100 or more employees effective July 1, 2008; and for all employers by July 1, 2009.

Idaho Executive Order
On December 13, 2006, Governor Jim Risch issued an executive order requiring that state agencies participate in the E-Verify system. Also, all workers employed to the state through contractors must also be from companies that have been verified to have eligible employees.

Minnesota Executive Order
Governor Tim Pawlenty issued an executive order on Jan. 7, 2008, stating that all hiring authorities within the executive branch of state government as well as any employer seeking to enter into a state contract worth in excess of $50,000 must participate in the E-Verify program. The Executive Order’s effective date is January 29, 2008.

Mississippi
Mississippi SB2988 (signed 3/17/08) requires public and private employers to participate in E-Verify. The phase-in period is: all government agencies and businesses with more than 250 employees by July 1, 2008; companies with 100 to 250 employees by July 1, 2009; those with 30 to 100 employees by July 1, 2010; and all remaining companies by July 1, 2011. An employer violating the law is subject to the cancellation of public contracts, ineligibility for contracts for up to three years, and loss of business license for up to one year. The law also makes it a felony to accept or perform employment knowing or in reckless disregard of the immigrant’s ineligibility to work, with penalties from one to five years of imprisonment and/or $1,000 to $10,000 in fines.

North Carolina
All state agencies, offices, and universities must use E-Verify, required by SB 1523 in 2006. This applies to employees hired on or after January 1, 2007, except for employees of local education agencies hired on or after March 1, 2007.

Oklahoma
The Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 (HB 1804) addressed multiple issues: transporting and harboring, driver’s licenses, public benefits, law enforcement and employment. It made it a felony to transport or harbor unauthorized immigrants, with exceptions for health or benefits guaranteed by federal law. It requires public employers, contractors and subcontractors to participate in a federal electronic employment verification system and requires income tax withholding for independent contractors who do not have valid Social Security numbers. The law became effective Nov. 1, 2007.

Rhode Island Executive Order
On March 27, 2008,Governor Carcieri issued an executive order requiring executive agencies to use E-Verify; and for all persons and businesses, including grantees, contractors and their subcontractors and vendors to use E-Verify.

Utah
SB 81 was signed into law 3/13/08. The law address multiple issues, including driver’s licenses, law enforcement, harboring and transporting, public benefits and employment. It requires public employers to register and use the Basic Pilot program for new employees; state contractors must use Basic Pilot effective July 1, 2009. The law makes it a Class A misdemeanor to conceal, harbor, transport or shelter undocumented immigrants, though church, charitable and humanitarian assistance groups are exempted.
Encourages the Use of E-Verify (1)

Tennessee
HB 729, signed into law on June 26, 2007 and effective January 1, 2008 states that employers who “knowingly employ, recruit or refer for a fee for employment an illegal alien” are subject to a temporary suspension of their business license; repeat offenders are subject to a one-year suspension. Employers who comply with the requirements of the current I-9 process or who verify new hires through the E-Verify within 14 days of employment are shielded from sanctions.

One State Limits The Use of E-Verify
Illinois
Illinois enacted HB 1744, which bars Illinois companies from enrolling in any Employment Eligibility Verification System until accuracy and timeliness issues are resolved. Illinois also enacted HB 1743, which creates privacy and antidiscrimination protections for workers if employers participating in E-Verify don’t follow the program’s procedures.

State Laws Targeting Employers On Immigration Status

Current Litigation Over State Laws: Federal Pre-emption
Two lawsuits now making their way through the federal court system could restrict states’ ability to continue to crack down on businesses that hire unauthorized workers. One is a court challenge to the 2007 Arizona employer sanctions law filed by a coalition of Arizona trade groups. In February, a federal judge denied the coalition’s request to delay implementation of the law with a temporary restraining order, and the plaintiffs took their case to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments are scheduled for this summer and a decision is expected in the fall.

Another lawsuit making its way through the federal courts originated last year in Hazleton, PA, where a local ordinance enacted in 2006 denies business permits to employers who hire illegal immigrants and fines landlords who rent to them. In a ruling issued last summer, a federal judge struck down the Hazleton ordinance, saying it treads on federal terrain and violates illegal immigrants’ constitutional right to due process.

The town is appealing the decision, and the case will be heard in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals this summer. A decision in this case is also expected in the fall.

If the two appellate courts hand down similar rulings; either both upholding the local laws, or both asserting federal authority, the battle over federal preemption could end there. But if the courts hand down opposing decisions – one supporting state authority and the other backing federal preemption – the debate will likely go to the Supreme Court. The consequence: no clear direction for state lawmakers for at least a year or two.

Many legal experts say the bills being passed in state capitals are not constitutional, and many of the new laws are being challenged in court. The U.S. Constitution gives federal law “supremacy” over state statutes. My personal understanding of the fundamental “pre-emption” issue is that the federal laws do not pre-empt these state laws. Frankly, this is a very complex constitutional issue.

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) explicitly prohibits states from imposing sanctions on businesses that hire unauthorized workers. But one phrase in the 1986 law – a seven-word parenthesis allowing states some leeway in the matter of “licenses and similar laws” – has created a contested gray area.

Many states have taken the IRCA parenthesis to mean they have the authority to suspend or revoke the business licenses of employers who hire unauthorized workers. Businesses and many constitutional lawyers disagree.

“You have this complex overlay of statutes and regulations and court cases, and you’ve got this federalism question of what has traditionally been federal power and what the states can do,” Jan Ting, a Temple University law professor, told the Washington Post. “There could not be an area of law that is less clear than this.”

Because states have until recently stayed away from imposing sanctions for immigration violations, federal preemption has rarely been tested and few court precedents exist.

Private Rights of Action
While E-Verify requirements have so far proven the most popular method to deter the hiring of illegal immigrants, some states are beginning to make use of another tool: giving employees a “private right of action.” Oklahoma was the first state to pass such legislation, in 2007, allowing fired U.S. workers to sue their employers if unauthorized workers were subsequently found to be working in their place. Mississippi, Utah and South Carolina followed with similar provisions this year, allowing fired workers to sue if they are then replaced by illegal immigrants. Some say the laws could open businesses to lawsuits if they employ any unauthorized workers, whether or not they have hired them to replace fired legal workers. Other states are expected to adopt this approach next year.

Also still in place are provisions mandating that all businesses in Arizona enroll in E-Verify and allowing prosecutors to investigate anonymous tips made against businesses alleged to be employing unauthorized workers.

State Felony Laws
Companies should also be concerned about a Mississippi law that makes it a felony for illegal immigrants to accept unauthorized employment. Violators are subject to imprisonment from one to five years and fines of between $1,000 and $10,000. And while the measure seemingly applies only to unauthorized workers, if I had clients who do business in Mississippi I would be strongly cautioning them. I have many clients, both individual and business, where the kind employer assists driving the very good employee to work because the employee does not have a valid state driver license because s/he lacks immigration status. In my opinion a business can be prosecuted for aiding and abetting a felony or harboring a felon under this law.

Oklahoma also imposed felony penalties, in 2007 – in that case, against anyone caught transporting, concealing, harboring or sheltering illegal immigrants in any location,
including any building or means of transportation. Utah, Missouri and South Carolina passed similar measures this year, and many fear the provisions could be used against employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers.

Incoming search terms:

www thetexascriminallawattorneys com (10)employment verification laws (9)i-9 laws (8)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-criminal-attorney (4)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/index html (4)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-dui-lawyers (3)employeri (2)employers i9 responsibilities (2)what are the obligations of an employer who discovers that they have an illegal alien (2)employee verification laws in oklahoma (2)