Florida Employment Law Blog : Florida Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Epstein Becker Green Law Firm : Immigration, Discrimination, Labor, FLSA : Serving Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

The following post, authored by my partner Betsy Johnson, should be of interest to all Florida employers.

President Obama just celebrated his first year in office and his Administration has been busy! Employers of all sizes are starting to see the effects of the Obama Administration’s workplace agenda; especially at the Department of Labor (DOL). The watchword for all employers in the wage/hour arena for 2010 is “compliance.”  The DOL is slated to receive a substantial budget increase this year and it is going on a hiring spree to increase the number of investigators and enforcement personnel. 

The DOL’s agenda includes increased audit and enforcement proceedings related to “off the clock” work and the misclassification of employees as “exempt” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In addition, the DOL (in cooperation with the IRS) will focus its audit and enforcement proceeding on employers who misclassify individuals as independent contractors.  Now, more than ever, employers must have programs in place to ensure compliance with the myriad of wage/hour laws and regulations, and implement a clear strategy for handling government audits and enforcement actions. While the thought of conducting a comprehensive payroll practices compliance audit can be daunting, employers can efficiently conduct “spot” audits of particular areas where they may be vulnerable. 

As an initial matter, employers should determine who will conduct the audits. Utilizing internal resources such as the Human Resources and/or Payroll Departments and/or the company’s General Counsel will help keep the costs down. However, using internal resources may not guarantee that the results will be protected by the attorney-client privilege should the company become involved in litigation regarding the subject matter of the audit. As such, employers may wish to seek assistance of outside counsel to conduct the audit and analyze the results.

The purpose of these “spot” audits is to: 1) identify areas of non-compliance; 2) identify policies, procedures and/or practices that can be improved; 3) develop a plan for improvement; and 4) implement the plan. The areas where most employers are vulnerable to government actions and employee claims in the wage/hour area are:

•         Overtime calculation and payment

•         Off the clock work

•         “Donning and doffing” issues

•         Classification of employees (exempt v. non-exempt)

•         Time keeping

•         Recordkeeping

•         Proper classification of independent contractors

In planning a “spot” audit, employers should determine: 1) the scope and depth of the audit; 2) what data needs to be collected; 3) what documents need to be reviewed; 4) which managers should be interviewed to obtain relevant information; and 5) whether the employees should be surveyed for relevant information. On a cautionary note, if the employer believes there may be too many “skeletons in the closet” that may be exposed in an audit, consideration should be given to retaining outside counsel to assist in the audit so that the process and the results can be protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Finally, employers must decide what to do with the results of the audit. Some things to consider are: 1) who will be apprised of the results and how (written or verbal); 2) will the person who conducted the audit make recommendations regarding problem areas; 3) what, if anything, is going to be done about any problems; 4) how should any changes be implemented (a “spin doctor” may be needed); and 5) how is the employer going to address employee questions and challenges.

In the short-term, the exercise of conducting internal audits may be viewed as a distraction from an employer’s business purpose. In the long run, however, getting the company’s “house in order” before a government agency knocks on the door will save time, attorneys’ fees and the intangible costs of being embroiled in administrative or civil litigation. Remember the old adage: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Tuesday ICE stated that last Friday Krispy Kreme reached a $40,000 fine settlement with the government for violating U.S. immigration laws by hiring illegal worker. ICE stated that an inspection at a Krispy Kreme factory in Cincinnati  revealed that the company employed many foreign workers who were not authorized for employment. The inspection also showed that the company did not have the required paperwork for all workers at the factory. As part of the settlement, Krispy Kreme has taken measures to revise its immigration compliance program, and has agreed to begin implementing new procedures to prevent future violations of federal immigration laws, ICE said.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

President Obama made it clear that his immigration plan was to “bring people out of the shadows, improve our immigration system, create secure borders, remove incentives to enter illegally and honor our immigrant troops.” However, the Obama administration has not provided any details as to how it is going to accomplish this plan. This has not only created a good amount of speculation, but also a good deal of frustration among U.S. employers. Yet, in spite of lacking details, the Obama has sent out “immigration signals” and employers should be prepared to feel the effects.

The most important of these immigration signals was Secretary Napolitano’s appointment as head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The appointment reveals some of the most basic immigration strategies of the administration’s plan. This is not only part of a well calculated move, but the foundational step necessary to set President Obama’s immigration plan in motion.

Secretary Napolitano is considered a smart and demanding attorney with an intense work habit and a quick grasp for bureaucratic detail. A twice elected Governor of Arizona and a former Attorney General and U.S. attorney, she is not only a pragmatist who signed the toughest state immigration law in the nation, but also a politician with strong enforcement views. She is one of the most experienced state executives in the nation with immigration and one of the very few qualified to handle a massive immigration reform loaded with compliance and enforcement requirements.

She has repeatedly called for a “technology-driven border control” and the penalizing of employers hiring undocumented workers.

Secretary Napolitano indicated that her approach, in terms of immigration raids, will be to closely watch the design of the operations and that the focus will be on “unscrupulous employers” rather than on undocumented workers. She also stated that raids will continue where undocumented workers are present and that she expects to increase the focus on ensuring that employers “of unlawful workers are prosecuted for their violations.” Moreover, Napolitano pledged to increase the focus on criminal punishment for employer violators and to encourage them to work with federal immigration agents to “establish sound compliance programs that prevent unlawful hiring.” She also aims to continue boosting manpower on the borders and focusing on technology, such as ground sensors. At the same time, it is her full intention to enforce these methods in a fair manner across borders, ensuring that the law is applied.

This represents a 180 degree shift from the Bush administration’s approach to immigration enforcement, which sought to penalize undocumented workers, rather than prosecuting employers under the theory that actual convictions were hard to get.

In short, immigration reform, whether in piece-meal or in one whole swap, will be enacted in 2009 or 2010. Employers will continue to be raided, but enforcement actions are likely to conform to those prescribed under immigration law rather than the “hyper-criminalized” actions conducted under the Bush administration with their inefficiencies and social negative effects.

Under Secretary Napolitano, DHS, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and possibly in association with other governmental agencies (i.e. IRS, USDOL, SSA, etc.), the number of government audits and the so called “inspections” will escalate. Technology based programs such as E-verify will rule and could become mandatory for every employer in the U.S. Wise employers will be served well by putting their immigration compliance (i.e. I-9, public access and audit files, etc.) houses in order.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I am reproducing in its entirety the following article, I think you should read it:

"ICE Enlists Companies to Stem Illegal Hirings - Firms Sign On for Self-policing; Critics Wonder If It Could Be a Trap By SUSAN CARROLL Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle, Sept. 9, 2008, 10:52PM

With high-profile workplace immigration raids making news across the country, many employers might not seem eager to sit face-to-face with an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent and open up their books for scrutiny. But Betsy Kippenhan, an executive with a Houston-based staffing firm, seemed downright excited about it, speaking fondly of the "ICE advocate" who will be helping the company, Talent Tree, verify its worker eligibility through an ICE program called "IMAGE."

"We wanted to make sure they were going to look at us and give us the stamp of approval, which is what they've done," said Kippenhan on Tuesday after formally signing up for ICE's self-policing program for employers. But some immigration attorneys and labor advocates warned that IMAGE could be a legal trap for employers who haven't been vigilant examining workers I-9 forms, which establish eligibility to work in the U.S. In exchange for free education and training, companies participating in IMAGE (Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers) agree to meet certain requirements, including using the federal government's Internet-based employment verification system and checking workers' Social Security numbers. Employers also must agree to an ICE audit of workers' employment paperwork and promise to self-report any violations of hiring law.

Membership growing
ICE spokeswoman Pat Reilly said the program started small in January 2007 with only nine members. On Tuesday it added 26 members and 11 associate members, a category created in June to give employers two years to get their paperwork in order before submitting to an ICE audit or producing an annual report. The membership rolls range from small businesses like the Bellaire-based construction company All American Brothers, to big names in government contracting, like General Dynamics. Smithfield Foods Inc., which employs more than 57,000 people worldwide, also is an associate member. Reilly said some employers expressed an interest in the program after "someone else in their industry was the subject of a worksite enforcement" raid. ICE has stepped up its worksite enforcement in recent months, reporting 3,900 arrests for immigration violations and more than 1,000 criminal arrests from worksite enforcement investigations in the past 10 months. According to ICE, 116 owners, managers, supervisors or human resources employees, were facing criminal charges in connection with on-the-job raids, including harboring or knowingly hiring undocumented workers.

'A poor image'
For some companies, Reilly said, the program is "brand protection, and an insurance against 'headline risk'. You don't want your brand bandied about as somebody who doesn't comply with the law because then you lose clients' confidence." Kathleen Walker, an El Paso attorney and executive committee member with the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said IMAGE "has a poor image" and has attracted few participants. "I think it's a mirage," Walker said. "Employers can put themselves into a trap signing up for IMAGE." Charles Foster, a Houston immigration attorney with Tindall & Foster, urged employers to use caution before signing up for the program, particularly if "their house is not in order." "On the surface, there is nothing wrong with it," he said. "But there are concerns that employers should be aware of. You're effectively inviting the government to review all of your employment verification forms. That could produce significant civil and criminal liability."

'Not a trap'
Foster and Walker pointed to a raid of the Swift & Co. meatpacking plants in December 2006 in Texas as an example of what can go wrong with private partnerships with ICE. Swift had voluntarily participated in the government's electronic employment verification system for more than a decade before the raids, which resulted in more than 1,200 arrests at six meatpacking plants. Reilly said E-Verify is a "free, easy-to-use tool," but is not a stand-alone solution to detecting undocumented workers. She said hiring practices at Swift plants showed a pattern of blatant illegal behavior. Reilly said IMAGE is "not a trap," pledging that ICE will work with businesses that participate in the program. "When we look at their records ... and patterns that might indicate an illegal workforce, we're not going to say, 'You have to come into compliance by tomorrow.' " Reilly said. "But what we are going to look for is if there is any illegal activity going on in their workplace, we're going to ask them to take care of that first, like stolen identities and flagrant fraudulent documents." Hector Diaz, the president of All American Brothers Company based in Bellaire, called the program "the wave of the future." He signed up as an associate member on Tuesday, and completed his first day of IMAGE training in Arlington, Va., saying the program has become an necessity for his roughly 20-employee construction company, which works exclusively on government contracts. "I think it's going to be a requirement for federal contract work," said Diaz, whose recent projects included work at Ellington Field and NASA. "You can't be working on a government contract and have an illegal alien."

Reassuring clients
Ruth McCurdy, vice president for corporate connections for Talent Tree, which employs 35,000 temporary associates and about 250 staff members nationwide, said one of the main goals is to reassure clients that workers placed with their companies by the staffing firm are eligible to work in the U.S. "There are companies out there that employ illegal aliens and put them in companies, and that puts a lot of people at risk," McCurdy said. "When you are working with a third party for your workforce, you need to know you have a partner that has people who have passed the eligibility requirements."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration, Office of Foreign Labor Certification (“USDOL”) recently issued further clarification on the role attorneys should play in the PERM process in light of Fragomen Audits. The key language of the clarification states:

“…given that the permanent labor certification program imposes recruitment standards on the employer that may deviate from the employer’s normal standards of evaluation, the Department understands and appreciates the legitimate role attorneys and agents play in the permanent labor certification process, and respects the right of employers to consult with their attorney or agent during that process to ensure they are complying with all applicable legal requirements.

By prohibiting attorneys, agents, and foreign workers from interviewing and considering U.S. workers during the permanent labor certification process, as described in 20 C.F.R. 656.10 (b)(2)(i) and (ii), the Department does not thereby prohibit attorneys and agents from performing the analyses necessary to counsel their clients on legal questions that may arise with respect to this process. The employer, and not the attorney or agent, must determine whether a U.S. applicant’s credentials meet the minimum qualifications for the position, unless the attorney or agent is the representative of the employer who routinely performs this function for positions for which labor certifications are not filed. After an employer evaluates a U.S. worker and concludes that the worker is unqualified, the employer may seek the advice of its attorney or agent to ensure that its reasons for rejecting the U.S. worker are lawful, and the attorney or agent may review the qualifications of the U.S. worker to the extent necessary to provide that advice. By contrast, if an employer evaluates a U.S. worker and determines that the worker is minimally qualified, the attorney, agent, or foreign worker may not thereafter consider the applicants’ qualifications and attempt to substitute his or her own judgment for that of the employer. In the Department’s view, an employer’s determination that a U.S. worker is minimally qualified for a position constitutes clear evidence that there are U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified and available for the work to be undertaken. More specifically, the types of actions prohibited by 20 C.F.R. 656.10(b)(2)(i) and (ii) include:

• Attorneys and agents may receive resumes and applications from U.S. workers who respond to the employer's recruitment efforts; however, they may not conduct any preliminary screening of applications before the employer does so, unless the attorney or agent is the representative of the employer who routinely performs this function for positions for which labor certifications are not filed. The attorney or agent may not withhold from the employer any resumes or applications that it receives from U.S. workers.

• Attorneys and agents may not participate in the interviewing of U.S. worker applicants, unless the attorney or agent is the representative of the employer who routinely performs this function for positions for which labor certifications are not filed. Such involvement, because of its uniqueness, has resulted in an impermissible “chilling effect” on the interests of U.S. worker-applicants in the position.

• After the evaluation of applications by the employer has been completed, the employer may consult with its attorney or agent about the implications of its qualification determinations on the labor certification application. Those consultations can encompass the question of whether applicants who were found by the employer to be unqualified were rejected for lawful, job related reasons. Under no circumstances, however, should an attorney or agent seek to dissuade an employer from its initial determination that a particular applicant is minimally qualified, able, willing and available for the position in question.

Where the Department finds evidence of potentially improper attorney, agent, or foreign worker involvement in considering U.S. worker applicants, the Department may audit applications to determine whether the employer’s recruitment and hiring processes were conducted in good faith and to ensure adherence to all statutory and regulatory requirements.”

In a certain sense this clarification is good because not only supports an employer’s right to consult with its lawyer, but also acknowledges that attorneys can play a very important role in the labor certification process. My concern is that USDOL will now attempt to either reduce further the role of the attorney or inhibit an employer’s ability to consult with its lawyer during the labor certification process. Further, USDOL statement at the end of its clarification could qualified as an announcement that it will initiate more investigations and audits.  Keep an eye on this, there will be more developments.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On June 2, 2008, the USDOL announced that all PERM Labor Certification Applications (“LC”) submitted by the law firm of Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy (“FDBL”), the largest immigration firm in the nation, will be audited.

USDOL’s announcement states: “The department has information indicating that in at least some cases the firm improperly instructed clients who filed permanent labor certification applications to contact their attorney before hiring apparently qualified U.S. workers. The audits will determine which, if any, applications should be denied or placed into department-supervised recruitment because of improper attorney involvement in the consideration of U.S. worker applicants.”

I do not know what FDBL did or did not do, but I certainly take objection at USDOL’s decision, as a colleague stated, for “trying” FDBL in a press release. Such announcements should be reserved only for cases in which the USDOL has found the existence of wrongdoing.

In its announcement the USDOL also states that: “There is no legitimate reason to consult with immigration attorneys before hiring apparently qualified U.S. workers who have responded to recruitment required by the permanent labor certification program.” I could not disagree more or in stronger terms. It is wrong for an attorney to advise the employer not to hire a qualified U.S. worker, but USDOL regulations are clear as far as an employer’s right to receive legal counsel through the much confusing and convoluted PERM process. 20 CFR § 656.10(b)(1) states clearly that attorneys may represent employers throughout the process. As long as the attorney does not interview or consider the U.S. worker for the position, the attorney has not violated any rule. Through this announcement USDOL also appears wanting to restrict the open communication that must exist between an attorney and his client for purposes of legal representation.

But there is another point I wish to make. Many employers in their quest for the “easiness” of a mill application process and low attorney fees receive legal services which may cover the minimum application requirements, but that do not offer protection. The days of “easy” compliance are long gone; today’s immigration law is complex, always changing and confusing. The US government has become more active in enforcing immigration laws against employers. In response to 9/11, the government has increased security measures and electronic initiatives to address national security concerns. The increase in the government's immigration policies is manifesting itself in a resurgence of government audits and criminal investigations of US employers. Given these enforcement times we live in, employers would be better served by researching and hiring legal services that offer them safety.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks