We Are Open (With Safety Precautions) & Ready To Help:  Click Here To Watched Our Covid-19 Webinar — What Employers Need to Know


According to published reports, the U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement Agency ("ICE") has sent out some 1,000 notices of immigration audits across the U.S. The large number of notices during September is apparently tied to the close of the end of the government's fiscal year on September 30. The government refuses to release the names of the companies being audited, but reportedly the audits particularly have involved restaurants, food processing, agriculture, and manufacturing. Some say the large number of audits are related, at least in part, to the push in Washington to pass immigration reform legislation.

In such audits, ICE sends a notice of an audit demanding various documents, including I-9 forms, and various payroll lists. After reviewing the documents, ICE issues a "Notice of Suspect Documents" listing suspect workers. Employers receiving such notices are required to notify the workers of their challenge by the government and that they must be terminated unless they show additional legitimate papers. The government is getting increasingly tough on the amount of time it gives the employers to terminate the suspect workers.

Audited employers later receive a second notice indicating the amount of any applicable fines, which can range from $110 to $1,110 per I-9 form, depending on the seriousness of the paperwork errors. Some errors are deemed substantive, while some are deemed procedural. In the latter situation, the employers are given 10 days to correct the errors, the failure of which results in fines.

Many employers erroneously think that simply being on the government's E-Verify system protects them from fines, but that is not the case. In a few cases, there have been substantial criminal fines in addition to the normal penalties, and, in at least two cases, the amount of the penalties have exceeded $1 million. These more expensive situations have occurred where there is potential criminal prosecution for knowingly hiring unauthorized workers.


Union membership in the U.S. continues to dwindle, with the percentage of American workers in unions dropping to 11%, and less than 7% in the private sector. The decline in organized labor continues in spite of a very pro-union administration in power, and a favorable NLRB. Apparently, the AFL-CIO has now concluded that it cannot achieve gains in organized labor alone, so its current push is to expand relationships with other groups. These other groups include large national organizations, as well as more local worker groups.

From a national level, the AFL-CIO during September passed a resolution to try to bring large national groups that might have a common cause with it under some type of umbrella. Some of the groups the AFL-CIO hopes to include in this type umbrella organization include the National Organization for Women, the Blue Green Alliance, the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, and the Sierra Club. These optimistic plans were scaled back somewhat in the recent resolution, however, because the voting members did not want to give such outside groups full membership and participation in the governing power. The plan is apparently to address each outside group on a case-by-case basis, with the type of coalition to vary from one organization to the other.

A second but related AFL-CIO development relates to their increasing efforts to get involved with local community groups, often called worker centers. The idea is to provide services or help or in some cases grants to these worker centers, working closely with them so that they can encourage labor organization contacts with traditional unions. Many such worker centers relate to ethnic groups or particular occupations. Examples include the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, claiming 17,000 members and the National Domestic Workers Alliance, claiming 10,000 members. Last year, one international union gave $2.5 million to the New York Communities for Change, which this year conducted a series of 1-day strikes involving more than 2,000 fast-food workers in a number of cities. These workers are asking for $15 an hour and a speedy process to join a union.

Labor leaders say unions must create new models to reverse their steady decline. The actions in places such as New York, Chicago, and Detroit involve fast-food workers at McDonald's, Burger King, and other fast-food restaurants, and the worker groups are not considered "labor organizations" under the law, even though they receive support from traditional unions. The idea is that if unions cannot organize through the NLRB, they can seek coalitions through worker centers as a way to show workers how coordinated action can win concessions from employers. The idea is to make such workers more sympathetic to the idea of joining a union later.

Some of these worker centers have more credibility with workers than traditional unions, and offer some advantages due to the fact that the labor laws may not apply to them. Several Republicans in the House of Representatives and a business group known as the Center for Union Facts contend that such worker centers, by not registering as unions, are wrongfully avoiding the laws that govern unions. For example, during July, two House Republicans asked the Labor Department to investigate whether worker centers should be subject to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, which requires unions to submit annual financial reports to the DOL. Some of the worker groups that have been identified include the Koreantown Immigrant Workers Alliance, the Organization United for Respect at Wal-Mart, Restaurant Opportunity Center United, Working America, and Fast Food Forward. These groups have been identified as "front groups" for organized labor. International unions particularly involved with these groups include the United Food and Commercial Workers, Unite-Here, AFL-CIO, and the Service Employees' International Union.

These efforts also include attention to industries that have not traditionally been subject of union organizing, including domestic workers and taxi drivers. Other such worker groups include day laborers, daycare workers, university graduate students, and others. Unions have been successful in organizing marijuana dealers in states that have legalized the drug for recreational or medical use.


The U.S. Department of Labor has announced two final rules that will add to the already substantial reporting requirements imposed on federal contractors by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). These rules will be effective 180 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246, which has required companies that do $10,000 or more of business with the U.S. Government to submit detailed affirmative action plans (AAPs) documenting their efforts to employ minorities and women (and subjects them to scrutiny and potential liability if their efforts are found wanting). The new regulations adds new requirements to the Affirmative Action Plans (AAP) for disabled veterans and individuals with disabilities.

Starting in the spring of 2014, covered employers will be subject to the "aspirational goal" of having 7% of their workforce composed of persons with disabilities, and 8% of disabled veterans. One set of rules updates requirements under the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRA); the other updates those under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The VEVRA rule provides contractors with a "quantifiable metric" (in effect, an informal quota) to measure their success in recruiting and employing veterans by requiring contractors to annually adopt a benchmark either based on the national percentage of veterans in the workforce (currently 8%), or their own benchmark based on the best available data. The rule imposes accountability and record-keeping requirements, as well as job listing and subcontract requirements to facilitate compliance.

The Section 503 rule similarly introduces a hiring "goal" for federal contractors and subcontractors that 7 % of each job group in their workforce be qualified individuals with disabilities. The rule also details specific actions contractors must take in the areas of recruitment, training, record keeping and policy dissemination - similar to those that have long been required to promote hiring and retention of women and minorities.

The shift in emphasis from the ability to do the work to status - "disability-hood" - runs counter to the theme of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was enacted to prohibit employers from discriminating against disabled workers who can perform the essential functions of their job with or without reasonable accommodation. But it is consistent with recent regulations proposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which encourage disabled workers to "self-identify" and be counted towards utilization goals.

What does this mean for federal contractors? More paperwork, certainly: the new regs will add chapters to existing AAPs. Applicants will have an incentive to broadcast less-than-obvious disabilities, in the hope that their status will make them a more attractive hire. Employers will have an incentive to scour their current workforce to "out" the disabled to meet the metrics (though they will have to tread carefully to avoid running afoul of the ADA). And, of course, everyone can expect more litigation.


On May 8, 2013, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provided temporary guidance about the soon-to-launch Obamacare exchanges. According to the guidance, employers must provide notice about the exchanges to current and all newly hired employees starting no later than Oct. 1, 2013 (“Exchange Notice”).

DOL also announced an updated model election notice that plans must provide to inform departing employees about continued health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) (“COBRA Notice”).

Model Exchange Notice Issued - Model language for the Exchange Notice is available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform/index.html. There is one model Exchange Notice for employers that offer a health plan to some or all employees and another model Exchange Notice for employers that do not offer a health plan. Employers may use one of these models or a modified version, provided the notice satisfies certain requirements. The notice must be provided to each and every employee without exception. Employers are not required to provide a separate notice to dependents or other individuals who are or may become eligible for coverage under the plan but who are not employees.

Timing of Exchange Notice - Beginning Oct. 1, 2013, the guidance requires employers to provide the exchange notice to each new employee at the time of hiring. For 2014, the DOL will consider a notice to have been timely delivered if it is provided within 14 days of an employee’s start date.

Model COBRA Notice Revised - DOL revised the Model COBRA Notice to inform qualified beneficiaries of coverage options available through government-run health care exchanges under Obamacare. The COBRA Notice is available in modifiable electronic form at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/cobra.html.

Commentary – Although the DOL guidance "requires" the issuance of the Notices, some question whether the DOL has the authority to issue such guidance without issuing appropriate regulations. In any event, DOL has admitted that there is no penalty for failing to issue the Notices.

Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine

3400 Peachtree Road, Ste 400 / Lenox Towers / Atlanta, GA 30326 /404.365.0900

Where Experience Counts

Thank you for visiting the firm's website. Please note that this website is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute an offer of representation or create an attorney-client relationship with the firm. The firm welcomes receipt of electronic mail but the act of sending electronic mail alone does not create an attorney-client relationship. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include the firm's copyright notice.

© 2020 Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine P.C. | Site By JSM