Hilton In Naples, FL Signs Up For The IMAGE Program

 

On May 26, 2010, the Hilton Naples signed an agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to participate in the voluntary IMAGE program. This is the first company in the city of Naples, Florida to sign up for the IMAGE program. IMAGE, or ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers, is a government initiative designed to improve employer self-compliance. Employers participating in IMAGE must submit first to a Form I-9 audit by ICE and verify all of their employees' social security numbers through the Social Security Number Verification System (SSNVS). Employers are also obligated to  sign up for E-Verify, conduct I-9 audits semiannually using a neutral party, ensure that only trained employees complete Form I-9 and use E-Verify, set protocols for responding to no-match letters, and much more. Employers using E-Verify must sign a Memorandum of Understanding or MOU which requires them to allow ICE (DHS) and SSA or their authorized agents or designees to "make periodic visits" to the employer.

IMAGE is NOT a “safe harbor” for employers. ICE has not indicated that IMAGE “partners” will not be subject to enforcement actions. Moreover, E-Verify participants have been subject to worksite enforcement actions. Given ICE’s inspection powers under IMAGE an employer should seriously consider the consequences of implementing these practices.

Florida Led Nation in FLSA Lawsuits in 2009

Florida led the nation in Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuits in 2009. Statistics generated from PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) show that about 2000 new cases were filed in United States District Courts in Florida last year, far more than in any other state. 

Of course, Florida is not the only hotbed of wage-hour litigation. California, which has its own, more rigorous wage-hour laws, has a large number of wage-hour cases filed in its state court system. Texas and New York are also seeing increasing numbers of wage-hour cases.

But when it comes to the FLSA, the Sunshine State rules. The reasons for this are somewhat mysterious. Are Florida employees more litigious than in other states? Do Florida employers violate the FLSA more often? Is there a more active plaintiff-side employment bar in Florida? I suspect the answer is a combination of all these factors, plus good old-fashioned word of mouth. Here’s what I mean: The vast majority of FLSA cases settle before trial. FLSA settlements generally must be approved by a court, see Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982), and many judges refuse to allow FLSA settlements to be confidential. And even if the terms of a settlement are confidential, a settling plaintiff can always disclose that the case has been “resolved amicably,” or words to that effect. Whatever the exact words, the message is clear – the plaintiff got a nice check. It’s like that old shampoo commercial from the 70’s: a settling plaintiff tells two friends, and they tell two friends, and so on and so on… Pretty soon you have 2000 FLSA cases on the docket.

So what can a Florida employer do to avoid being named in an FLSA lawsuit? Well, the best advice I can offer is to make every reasonable effort to comply with FLSA. That may seem obvious, but it’s not as easy as it sounds because the FLSA can be counterintuitive; its rules are often inconsistent with what seem to be reasonable and ethical business practices. But if you learn what the FLSA requires, and adopt policies and practices that are consistent with the law, you will go a long way toward avoiding a lawsuit. And, yes, get the advice of a qualified employment lawyer if you are unsure about what to do. Believe me, it will be far less expensive than litigation.

California Employment Law for Florida Employers

This should be a great seminar.  Looking forward to seeing you there.



 California Employment Law for 
Florida Employers

 

Monday, November 2, 2009
Lunch & Program 12:00PM - 2:00 PM

 

 

Miami City Club
Wachovia Financial Center
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
55th Floor

Miami, FL 33131

___________________________________________

Presented by:
 Angel Gomez, III, Esq., EpsteinBeckerGreen

California is home to one of the largest economies in the world, and to one of the world's best-educated and most productive workforces.  Many employers find California to be an essential part of their strategic plan, but are not aware of the specifics of the state's evolving employment laws and policies.
 
We would like to invite you to a special seminar with Angel Gomez, Esq., a member of Epstein Becker & Green situated in the Firm’s Los Angeles office, concentrating in employment law.  Mr. Gomez will provide tips for preventing and minimizing liability for companies with employees in California.

 

  • The average jury verdict in employment cases is nearly $1.4 million
  • It is illegal to require female employees to wear skirts
  • It is illegal to have a "use it or lose it" vacation plan
  • Terminated employees must be paid in full on their last day
  • Transvestites are a "protected class" in some cities
  • Overtime must be paid after 8 hours of work in a day
  • Pregnant employees may take up to seven months of protected leave
  • Releases must contain California-specific language
  • Employees may use one-half of their sick time for family illnesses
  • California’s new disability discrimination law is broader than the ADA
  • Co-workers can be personally liable for unlawful harassment
  • Group insurance premiums may need to be paid indefinitely by the company for someone on workers’ compensation leave
  • Termination of an employee on workers’ compensation leave is risky and complex – even if the employee has been out for a year or more
  • There are important exceptions to many of the above 

This lunch session is intended for senior personnel management, as well as in-house counsel, whose advice is sought concerning their California operations.  We will review the specifics of California employment law that may not be well known outside of California, as well as discuss strategic and long-range issues.

For example, Mr. Gomez will also discuss:

  • How California juries assess employer termination decisions
  • How to structure terminations to increase your chance of success in California courts
  • What is required before a California court will enforce an arbitration agreement
  • How to avoid having that lawsuit against you decided by a jury
___________________________________________
Mr. Gomez is a graduate of Harvard Law School, and the University of California at Berkeley. He is an experienced speaker and author, including being the management co-author of California Employment Litigation, a widely read treatise on the subject, published by Bancroft-Whitney. He has spoken before such organizations as the National Employment Law Institute, Personnel and Industrial Relations Association, National Employment Law Council, among many others.

In an ever-changing California legal environment, increased knowledge can help you to protect against potentially significant liability and improve your company's overall productivity. Please contact Anneliese Garcia 305.579.3200 or agarcia@ebglaw.com with any questions.
FEE
$30
Please RSVP no later than
 Thursday, October 29, 2009
Please respond by clicking one of the buttons below
Yes No
 

About Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

Founded in 1973, EpsteinBeckerGreen is a law firm with approximately 350 lawyers practicing in offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Newark, San Francisco, Stamford and Washington D.C. The Firm’s size, diversity, and global affiliations allow its attorneys to address the needs of both small entrepreneurial ventures and large multinational corporations on a worldwide basis. EpsteinBeckerGreen continues to build and expand its capabilities as a law firm focused on five core practices: Business Law, Health Care and Life Sciences, Labor and Employment, Litigation and Real Estate. For more information on EpsteinBeckerGreen, please visit www.ebglaw.com.  For more than three decades, the EpsteinBeckerGree seminar series has introduced senior executives, general counsel and human resources professionals to cutitng-edge issues in nearly every area of business touched by law. 

 

 
Having trouble with the link? Simply copy and paste the entire address listed below into your web browser:
http://guest.cvent.com/i.aspx?1Q,P1,100FB60D-5EB1-4201-A277-62ACC6E130B5
If you do not wish to receive future emails from Anneliese Garcia please click the link below.
Click here

 

DOL's Failures Leave Workers with Nowhere to Turn? Not in Florida.

A report by the Government Accountability Office found that the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division, the federal agency charged with enforcing minimum wage, overtime and other labor laws, "is failing in that role, leaving millions of workers vulnerable," according to an article in today's New York Times.

One of the reports concerned the Division's office in Miami:

When an undercover agent posing as a dishwasher called four times to complain about not being paid overtime for 19 weeks, the division’s office in Miami failed to return his calls for four months, and when it did, the report said, an official told him it would take 8 to 10 months to begin investigating his case.

The report concludes that "Labor has left thousands of actual victims of wage theft who sought federal government assistance with nowhere to turn." 

Nowhere to turn? In Florida that's simply not true.  As anyone who pays attention to court filings can tell you, dozens of workers each week, many on the low end of the pay scale, file claims for overtime and minimum wage violations in Florida state and federal courts.  Indeed, as previously reported here, according to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, for the past five years the Southern District of Florida alone has averaged 28.7% of all Fair Labor Standards Act cases filed in the United States.  The notion that workers have "nowhere to turn" is absurd.  They need only turn to one of Florida's many wage-hour lawyers, who have turned wage-hour litigation into a cottage industry in the sunshine state.  Does the GAO not realize that the FLSA permits private lawsuits, and in fact encourages them through its fee-shifting provisions? Why would an employee need the Wage and Hour Division when he has the Shavitz Law Firm or The Celler Legal Group in his corner? 

Federal Officials Report To Have Deported More Than 12,000 Foreign Nationals From Florida, Puerto Rico And The U.S. Virgin Islands In The 12 Months Ending In October 2008

On November 7, 2008, Associated Press reported “Federal officials say they have deported more than 12,000 illegal immigrants from Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the 12 months ending in October.” The number of deported foreign nationals provided by U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) is actually 12,753. This number includes immigration violators, fugitives, and foreign nationals convicted of deportable crimes (i.e. felonies and certain misdemeanors). This number also represents, roughly, a 25% increase in the number of deportations from the prior fiscal year (9,105). DHS’ fiscal year begins every October 1st.

 

USCIS Dedicates Newest Office in Orlando

On October 10, 2008, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") in a special dedication ceremony, which included hosting its first naturalization ceremony for 29 children, officially opened its newest field office in Orlando.  This field office, 37,000 square-foot facility, will provide full-service immigration processing, from fingerprints to naturalization, for people of Central Florida. The official release states that "the new office is based on a national model for new USCIS office locations throughout the country, and includes resources necessary to accommodate more than 450 customers daily." The Orlando Field office is part of USCIS’ Southeast Region, responsible for district and field office operations including the management of more than 900 government and contract employees in the southeast region of the U.S. The region covers a geographic area from North Carolina south to Florida, west to Louisiana and also to the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

Orlando's Lake Buena Vista & Spa Resort Designated First EB-5 "Regional Center" in Florida by USCIS

The EB-5 program was created by Congress as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) of 1990. Under section 203(b)(5) of the INA, 10,000 immigrant investor visas (green cards or EB-5 visas) per year are available to qualified individuals seeking permanent resident status on the basis of their engagement in a new commercial enterprise. Of the 10,000 investor visas available annually, 5,000 are set aside for those who apply under a pilot program involving a designated “Regional Center.” There are more than 20 such designated EB-5 programs nationwide. “Regional Center” is an entity, organization or agency that has been approved as such by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”). “Regional Center” designation focuses on a specific geographic area within the United States and seeks to promote economic growth through increased export sales, improved regional productivity, creation of new jobs, and increased domestic capital investment. The Lake Buena Vista Resort Village & Spa Resort has become Florida’s first designated EB-5 Regional Center by USCIS. The designation, known as the “EB-5” immigrant investor program, allows foreign nationals to become lawful permanent residents (LPR or green card holders) of the United States by investing at least a $1 million in a project that creates at least 10 jobs. Lake Buena Vista & Spa Resort plans to build 1,300 condo-hotel units. The resort is planned for 1,875 furnished resort condo units ranging from 1,080-2,170 square feet, along with dining, a fitness center, spa-salon, aquatic center, and other amenities. The EB-5 program will help to finance the construction of a new 152-unit building at the resort.

ACLU Guide To Florida's "No Match" Voter ID Law

The ACLU issued a press release regarding the ACLU Guide To Florida's "No Match" Voter ID Law, Tuesday, 30 September 2008, 4:24 pm.  I reproduce the press release in its entirety here below:
 

Questions & Answers about Florida's "No Match" Law
 

Q: What is the "no match" law?
A: The "no match" law prevents voter applicants from becoming registered to vote if the state cannot match their driver's license number, Florida identification number ("Florida ID"), or the last four digits of their Social Security number with a record in the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles or Social Security Administration databases. If a voter applicant's information cannot be "matched," the supervisor of elections must notify the applicant by mail that s/he must provide a copy of his or her ID by mail, fax, email, or in person to the supervisor before Election Day to become registered to vote and allowed to vote with a regular ballot. If a voter has a Florida driver's license (or a Florida non-driver ID card), she must provide a copy of the license (or non-driver Florida ID card). If a voter does not have one of these cards, and provided the last 4 digits of his/her Social Security number on his/her voter registration application, s/he must provide a copy of his/her Social Security card. If an unmatched applicant has not produced a copy of the relevant ID before Election Day, the applicant must vote by provisional ballot, which will not count unless s/he produces officials a copy of the relevant ID to the supervisor of elections by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday after the Election.


Q: I am already a registered voter. Does the "no match" law affect me?
A: No. The "no match" law does not affect voters who were registered by September 8, 2008. The law applies only to new voter registration applications received on or after September 8, 2008.
 

Q: If I vote by provisional ballot because my number didn't match, will my vote count?
A: If you vote by provisional ballot because of a "no match," your ballot will count only if: (a) you cast it in your assigned precinct and (b) you provide a copy of your driver's license, Florida ID card, or Social Security card by Thursday, November 6, 2008, at 5:00 p.m. You can provide a copy of your ID to your supervisor of elections by fax, mail, email, or in person. If you have a driver's license or Florida ID card, you must send a copy of that card. If you do not have one of those cards, and wrote the last 4 digits of your Social Security number on your application, you must send a copy of your Social Security card. Other identification documents (like a passport) will not be accepted.
 

Q: I haven't yet registered to vote. What can I do to keep my registration from being rejected due to the "no match" law:
A: Take the following steps:
1. Register as soon as possible. The more time you have before Election Day to correct any "non-match," the better.
2. Complete all the required fields of your voter registration application carefully and accurately.
3. If you have a Florida driver's license number or Florida ID number, you must list it, rather than the last four digits of your social security number, on your registration application. There is lower risk of "no match" if you list your driver's license or Florida ID number, rather than the last four digits of your social security number. If you do not have a Florida driver's license or Florida ID card, you must list the last 4 digits of your social security number.
4. After you have submitted your voter registration application, contact your local supervisor of elections office to verify that you are registered to vote and carefully review your mail to see whether you have received a voter identification card (indicating that your registration application has been accepted) from your supervisor of elections. Keep checking until you know you have been added to the voter rolls.
5. If you receive a letter saying that your ID number could not be matched, immediately provide a copy of your ID to your local supervisor of elections. Taking this step before Election Day will help ensure that you will be permitted to vote with a regular ballot. You can bring a copy of your card to the supervisor of elections' office, or mail, fax, or e-mail it in. Follow up with your local supervisor of elections to be sure they received the copy of your ID and that you are registered to vote.
 

To find your local supervisor of elections visit: http://election.dos.state.fl.us/soe/supervisor_elections.shtml
 

Q: I'm registered to vote. Will the "no match" law prevent me from voting if the address on my driver's license is not the same as the address on my voter registration?
A: No. The address on your driver's license does not need to match the address you use to register to vote. If you have moved since you registered, you should update your address with your local supervisor of elections before Election Day. You can also do this when you appear at the polls on Election Day.
 

Q: What is the purpose of the "no match" law?
A: Supporters of the law now argue that it is necessary to prevent voter fraud; however, there is scant evidence of voter fraud in Florida. Florida's "no match" law is one of the most burdensome in the country. The law results in many "no matches" for African-Americans, Haitians, and Latinos with nontraditional or hyphenated names and, thus, disproportionately prevents these voter applicants from becoming registered to vote.
 

Q: Is this "no match" law new?
A: No. The Florida legislature enacted the original version of the no-match law in 2005. It went into effect in January 2006. The law prevented 13,000 voters from being registered on Election Day in 2006, and in 2007, it prevented 16,000 voter applicants from being added to the voter rolls. In September 2007, several organizations that conduct voter registration sued to challenge the law, arguing that it needlessly prevented eligible voters from registering to vote.
In December 2007, a federal trial court issued a preliminary ruling that blocked enforcement of the law. That ruling was overturned in a split decision by an appellate court in April 2008, and in June 2008, the trial court refused to issue another preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law. The case is now proceeding on the merits. Notwithstanding the pending lawsuit, on September 8 - less than one month before the October 6 voter registration deadline - Secretary Browning announced his intention to enforce the no-match law.
 

16 Foreign Nationals and Corporations Indicted in Miami on Charges of Illegally Exporting Potential Military and Explosives Components to Iran

AmericasNewsToday reported that 16 foreign nationals and corporations have been indicted in Miami on charges of illegally exporting potential military and explosives components to Iran. I reproduce here below the entire article: “A federal grand jury in Miami, Fla., has returned a Superseding Indictment charging eight individuals and eight corporations in connection with their participation in conspiracies to export U.S.-manufactured commodities to prohibited entities and to Iran. The defendants are named in a thirteen (13) count Indictment – returned on Sept. 11, 2008 and unsealed today -- that includes charges of conspiracy, violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the United States Iran Embargo, and making false statements to federal agencies in connection with the export of thousands of U.S. goods to Iran. The charges were announced today by R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Patrick Rowan, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security, U.S. Department of Justice; Mario Mancuso, Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce; Adam Szubin, Director, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC); Sharon Woods, Director, Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS); and Julie L. Myers, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Superseding Indictment alleges that the defendants purchased, and then illegally exported to ultimate buyers in Iran, numerous "dual use" commodities. "Dual-use" commodities are goods and technologies that have commercial application, but could also be used to further the military or nuclear potential of other nations and could be detrimental to the foreign policy or national security of the United States. In this regard, the Superseding Indictment alleges that the defendants caused the export of 120 field-programmable gate arrays, more than 5000 integrated circuits of varying types, approximately 345 Global Positioning Systems ("GPS"), 12,000 Microchip brand micro-controllers, and a Field Communicator. All of these items have potential military applications, including as components in the construction of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The charges announced today are the result of an extensive inter-agency investigation into the use of U.S.-made goods in the construction of IEDs and other explosive devices used against Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Charged in the Superseding Indictment are: Ali Akbar Yahya, an Iranian national and naturalized British citizen; F.N. Yaghmaei, a/k/a " Farrokh Nia Yaghmaei," an Iranian national; Mayrow General Trading, Atlinx Electronics, Micatic General Trading, Madjico Micro Electronics, a/k/a "MME," and Al-Faris, all Dubai-based businesses; Neda Industrial Group, an Iran-based business; Bahman Ghandi, a/k/a "Brian Ghandi," an Iranian national; Farshid Gillardian, a/k/a "Isaac Gillardian," a/k/a "Isaac Gill," an Iranian national and a naturalized British citizen; Kaam Chee Mun, a/k/a "Brian Kaam," a resident of Malaysia; Djamshid Nezhad, a/k/a "Reza," a resident of Germany; Ahmad Rahzad, a/k/a "Saeb Karim," an Iranian national; Majid Seif, a/k/a "Mark Ong,"a/k/a "Matti Chong," an Iranian national residing in Malaysia; and Eco Biochem Sdn BHD and Vast Solution Sdn BHD, Malaysian businesses. The defendants are charged with purchasing and causing the export of U.S. goods to Iran through middle countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, England, Germany, and Singapore. More specifically, the charges in the Indictment are as follows:

• Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment charges defendants Yahya, Yaghmaei, Mayrow General Trading, Atlinx Electronics, Micatic General Trading, Majidco Micro Electronics, Al-Faris, and Neda Industrial Group with conspiracy to export goods to Iran and to defraud the United States, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Title 50, United States Code, Sections 1702 and 1705(a), the United States Iran Embargo, and the Export Administration Regulations, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

• Counts 2 through 5 charge defendants Yahya, Yaghmaei, Micatic, and Mayrow with exporting U.S. goods from the United States to Iran, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the United States Iran Embargo.

• Counts 6 through 8 charge defendants Yahya, Yaghmaei, Majidco, Micatic, and Mayrow with making false statements in federally mandated shipping documents regarding the ultimate destination and use of the goods, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

• Count 9 charges defendants Yahya, Mayrow, Al-Faris, Ghandi, Gillardian, Mun, Nezhad, Rahzad, Seif, Eco Biochem, and Vast Solution with conspiracy to export goods to Iran, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Title 50 United States Code, Sections 1702 and 1705(a), the United States Iran Embargo, and the Export Administration Regulations, and to defraud the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

• Counts 10 and 11 charge defendants Al-Faris, Seif, and Vast Solution with exporting U.S. goods from the United States to Iran, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the United States Iran Embargo.

• Counts 12 and 13 charge defendant Seif with making false statements by misrepresenting the ultimate destination and use of the goods on Federal Form BS-711 Statement By Ultimate Consignee and Purchaser, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta stated, "The dual use items that the defendants illegally exported to Iran have military applications, including the making of improvised explosive devices. I urge any domestic supplier who may have unwittingly helped the defendants, or others like them, to come forth and report the matter to federal law enforcement. We cannot profit at the expense of our soldiers’ safety abroad. The United States Attorney’s Office will continue to investigate this matter as additional information is uncovered." "Today's indictment details the global reach of Iranian procurement networks and underscores, in dramatic terms, the importance of keeping sensitive U.S. technology out of their grasp," said Patrick Rowan, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the U.S. Department of Justice. "This extensive, effective government effort has broken up a lethal international ring seeking to harm American and allied forces as well as innocent civilians by acquiring sensitive U.S. technology capable of producing improvised explosive devices (IED) similar to those being used in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Mario Mancuso, Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. "The Commerce Department remains firmly committed to protect our forces by prosecuting those who try to do them harm, and today’s action illustrates the broad scope of that endeavor." Adam Szubin, Director of the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, added, "The U.S. Government is wielding a powerful array of authorities against Iran's proliferation supply chain. In concert with today's unsealed indictment against Iran's suppliers and middlemen, Treasury is levying sanctions against Iranian military end-users that procured goods from those named in today's indictment. Together, the actions of the Justice, Commerce, and Treasury Departments will expose Iran's proxies to the world and undermine its procurement activities." Sharon Woods, Director of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service of the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, stated, "The illegal diversion of U.S. military technologies through deception, by domestic and foreign companies, poses a significant danger to America's soldiers on the battlefield. These illegally exported goods provided our enemies with necessary components to manufacture improvised explosive devices, designed to kill and maim U.S. troops and allies. The Pentagon's Defense Criminal Investigative Service and its investigative partners will continue to pursue and expose these hidden enemies to help protect our soldiers as we fight against global terrorism." "The national security implications of this case cannot be underestimated," said Julie L. Myers, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for ICE. "The export of dual use technology is controlled for good reason. In the wrong hands, these items could be used to harm our soldiers, our homeland, and our allies. Enforcing U.S. export laws is one of our top priorities, and we will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to ensure that those who put our country at risk are brought to justice. "If convicted on the conspiracy charges, the defendants each face a statutory maximum sentence of up to five (5) years’ imprisonment. If convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Iran Embargo, the defendants face a statutory maximum sentence of up to twenty (20) years’ imprisonment. If convicted of making false statements, the defendants face a statutory maximum sentence of up to five (5) years’ imprisonment. In addition, the defendants face possible fines of up to $1 million. Acosta commended the investigative efforts of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which led this investigation, the Office of Foreign Assets Control of Department of the Treasury, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Office of Investigations, for their work on this case. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Melissa Damian. Anyone with information regarding the activities of these defendants or others like them should contact the Commerce Department by calling 1-800-424-2980. On the Web: http://www.bis.doc.gov/.”


 

Florida's Alien Land Law

Although it was never enforced or put into practice, Florida still has on its books a law banning Asian immigrants from owning land. On November 2008, Florida voters will have an opportunity to remove our State's archaic “alien land law” of 1926. 

This law was originally enacted in response to a movement from West to East that begun with California enacting a similar law in 1913 on the basis that Asian workers, specially immigrants from Japan, would work for lower wages and be able to purchase large tracks of land. The Florida Constitution was amended allowing the legislature to regulate or prohibit, as saw fit, property ownership by aliens that were ineligible for citizenship.  In light of present federal laws which guarantee “equal protection” this type of law has no place anywhere in our country. Believe it or not, Florida is the last state in the union with such a law on its books.   Sen. Steve Geller, D-Cooper City, is credited as the responsible individual for persuading legislators to put this law on the ballot.

Brothers Plead Guilty to Enslaving Farmworkers in Florida

According to the U.S. Department of Justice "Cesar Navarrete, Geovanni Navarrete, Villhina Navarrete, Ismael Michael Navarrete and Antonio Zuniga Vargas pleaded guilty to charges relating to a scheme to enslave and Mexican and Guatemalan nationals and compel their labor as farmworkers, the Justice Department announced today. All five defendants pleaded guilty to harboring undocumented foreign nationals for private financial gain and identify theft. In addition, Cesar and Geovanni Navarrete pleaded guilty to beating, threatening, restraining and locking workers in trucks to force them to work for them as agricultural laborers. Cesar Navarrete also pleaded guilty to re-entering the U.S. after being convicted of a felony and deported, and Ismael Navarrete also pleaded guilty to document fraud. ... The defendants were accused of paying the workers minimal wages, driving them into debt, while simultaneously threatening physical harm if the workers left their employment before their debts had been repaid to the family. Previously, co-defendant Jose Navarrete entered a guilty plea for conspiracy to harbor and to harboring undocumented foreign nationals for financial gain as well as possession of false documents, identify theft and re-entry after being deported." USDOJ, Sept. 3, 2008.

 

Immigration Sting in Florida

The Beacon News online, member of the Sun-Times news group, reported on August 27, 2008, in an article written by MATT HANLEY that "An Aurora man is one of 10 people facing federal charges in an immigration sting, federal prosecutors announced this week. Vardahraj Bandari, 42, is charged with conspiracy to commit visa fraud and unlawfully harboring aliens in violation of federal immigration laws, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Florida. According to federal prosecutors, six people were arrested in Escambia County, a far western Florida county. The others charged were arrested in New Jersey and Georgia, prosecutors said. Representatives from the Florida federal prosecutors office did not comment on how Bandari was tied to the scheme and did not release additional information. Nine of the ten individuals -- including Bandari -- will be making their initial appearances in federal court. The 10th individual is expected to appear in United States District Court at a later date. Bandari's family could not be reached for comment. Federal prosecutors did not release a street address for Bandari.The case is being prosecuted by the United States Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Florida. facing federal charges in Fla. immigration sting."

Federal Court Certifies Class Of Florida Tomato Workers in Wage Suit

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida certified as the class all migrant and seasonal agricultural workers employed on a "piece-rate" basis at the Florida operations of Ag-Mart Produce Inc. from June 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006.  On July 18, the federal district court  certified a plaintiff class of Mexican agricultural workers who sued a Florida tomato grower for allegedly paying them less than minimum wage (Mesa v. Ag-Mart Produce Inc., M.D. Fla., No. 2:07-CV-47-FtM-34DNF, class certified 7/18/08). Piece-rate tasks included laying plastic, irrigation, planting, staking, tying, picking, and removing plastic and stakes after harvest, according to the six-page order signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard. The order adopted the March report and recommendations by a magistrate judge that the class of potentially 3,000 plaintiffs be certified on counts contained in a 2007 civil complaint alleging that the company routinely paid the workers less than the minimum wage mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The defendant company, which operates as Santa Sweets Inc. in its grape tomato growing operations in Florida, also allegedly violated the recordkeeping, wage statement, and payment provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, according to the lawsuit filed by attorneys for the Migrant Farmworker Justice Project. The lawsuit, with 177 named plaintiffs, also alleges minimum wage violations of the FLSA but does not seek class certification, as that law provides its own statutory framework for collective actions, the magistrate's report noted.

What Would an Obama Victory Mean for Florida Employers?

Recent poll numbers showing Barack Obama with a substantial lead over John McCain have got me thinking about what an Obama victory would mean for Florida employers. 

The Employee Free Choice Act, which Obama touts in this campaign speech,

could have a major impact on Florida employers if enacted into law.  Currently most Florida employers in the private sector are union-free, in large part because Florida is a right-to-work state.  In particular, Article I, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution provides in part that "[t]he right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or non-membership in any labor union or labor organization."

The EFCA would not change Florida's status as a right-to-work state. But it would jump-start the growth of unions by amending the National Labor Relations Act to eliminate an employer's right to demand a secret ballot election in cases in which a majority of employees have signed union authorization cards and there is no evidence of illegal coercion. Under the EFCA, a secret ballot election would be held only if more than 30%, but less than a majority of employees sign union authorization cards.  The bill provides that "[i]f the National Labor Relations Boad finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative...." (emphasis supplied). 

Not surprisingly, the AFL-CIO supports the EFCA and summarizes the bill favorably on its web site.  But the Heritage Foundation argues that under the EFCA, "[w]orkers would never have the option of voting against union membership, and millions of workers could be forced into a union without ever getting the chance to vote on the matter." 

Another law that may be amended to be more employee-friendly under an Obama administration (if not sooner) is the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The Connecticut Employment Law Blog reports on proposed amendments to the ADA here

Stay tuned for further developments.

 

Florida Business Organizations Challenge Bring Gun to Work Law

The Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation recently filed a lawsuit in federal court in Tallahassee against the “Guns At Work” legislation. Their rationale? “A business owner should be able to decide if employees can or cannot bring guns on their property.”  The law bars employers from banning firearms on their premises, provided employees hold concealed-weapons permits and leave the guns locked in their cars.

The legal claim of these business organizations is that House Bill 503, which was signed into law April 15 by Governor Charlie Crist, violates the Takings and Substantive Due Process clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and is in direct conflict with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

Most recently, on May 22, 2008, the Florida Chamber and Florida Retail Federation filed a motion to enjoin the enforcement of this statute.

I represent employers, so I can understand their concern that some employees will use this new right to intimidate their employers and co-workers, and possibly use their firearms in anger. On the other hand, the National Rifle Association makes some strong arguments in favor of the new legislation. Women who are being stalked, or employees who work in dangerous areas, may feel the need to have a firearm in their cars for their personal protection.

Stay tuned for further developments.

Summer is Approaching -- Do you Know the Rules on Employing Minors in Florida?

As summer approaches, Florida employers may want to re-familiarize themselves with applicable child labor laws.  There are both federal and state requirements that are nicely summarized in this poster from Florida's Department of Business and Professional Regulation

Florida Law Creates Citizen Soldier Matching Grant Program

On May 24, 2005, Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed into law House Bill 691, “Military Personnel on Duty.” This law is aimed at providing financial help to military personnel who are called to active duty while working in the private sector. Currently, there are no federal or state laws that require private sector employers to pay wages to employees who are called to active military duty. This new law will provide grants, via the Citizen Soldier Matching Grant Program, to reimburse Florida employers who pay the difference between the employees’ private sector wages and their military pay.

Each grant is limited to one-half the monthly wages paid to an employee before being called to active military duty, minus the employee’s active-duty pay, housing, and allowances. The bill will take effect July 1, 2005, and requires Florida’s Agency for Workforce Innovation to develop a plan to administer both the application and payment procedures for the grant program by October 1, 2005.
Another bill is currently in the U.S. House of Representatives that would provide tax credits for employers who make up the difference between the employee’s civilian salary and the employee’s military salary. A Senate version of the bill is also planned.