Today, Massachusetts started retail sales of marijuana at two locations. Perhaps no location is closer to the population centers of Connecticut than Northampton — just 30 miles up the road from Enfield.  It’s the first store east of the Mississippi River.

And lest you think that this is a Massachusetts-only affair, you need only watch the news reports from today to understand that there are plenty of Connecticut residents lining up seeking to avoid the restrictions in place in the Constitution State.   And Governor-Elect Lamont has indicated he’s in favor of it. 

This is going to cause headaches and some choices for employers in Connecticut.

Small amounts of marijuana have been de-criminalized in Connecticut but recreational use and possession is still prohibited. Moreover, employers are still free to discipline employees for recreational use on the job or even off.

But Connecticut has, for several years now, permitted medical marijuana users (who have registered with the state) to have some limited job protections.  On-the-job marijuana use can still be prohibited as well as showing up under the influence.

The City of Waterbury recently announced a policy that testing positive for any amount of marijuana may subject employees to discipline.  As a news article notes, that policy is likely to be challenged in arbitration and the courts.  

So what can a private employer do when it drug tests employees in Connecticut and the results show up as “positive” for marijuana? Well, employers are going to first want to know if the employee is a medical marijuana patient, in which case further inquiries may be needed.  Otherwise, the employer may have the ability to still discipline or terminate that employee’s employment.

Beyond the “Can We Fire…” question, the newer question is going to be “Should We Fire….”

With legal sales just miles away from employers here, the line as to what should be permitted or not gets, if you permit the pun, hazier and hazier.  No doubt, some employers are going to try to draw lines in the sand and say that any drug use is not permitted — particularly if there are additional legal obligations that they need to follow. But some others may have a more permissive attitude and treat marijuana use as they do alcohol use — it’s fine so long as it doesn’t impact work and so long as it isn’t done at work.

The start of retail sales in Massachusetts is not the end of the story here; Connecticut may very well start to reconsider its own laws now that one New England state has taken the plunge. Regardless, employers should continue to talk with their counsel to navigate this ever-changing area of law.

Like a lot of people, I’ve got the summer bug and, given the choice between a walk outside and a blog post — well, you can figure out what has been winning.

But I’ve got a few posts lined back up the next few weeks.  In the interim, I want to share with you one of the most meaningful and amazing speeches I’ve ever heard in person.

It’s from last week when I attended the American Bar Association Annual Meeting in Chicago, where I serve as the State Delegate for Connecticut (and on the ABA Nominating Committee as well).  At that meeting, the ABA presented it’s ABA Medal (it’s highest honor for exceptionally distinguished service by a lawyer to the cause of American jurisprudence) to Bryan Stevenson.

Stevenson is the founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative. During a 40 minute speech (which you really must listen to), he called on attendees to do four important tasks:

  1. Get close to people who live in the margins of society
  2. Change the narrative
  3. Stay hopeful
  4. Do things that are inconvenient and uncomfortable

Sounds straightforward enough. But with Stevenson’s brilliant oratory, he encouraged all of us to find meaning in the work we do through this and allow all of us to strive towards justice.

You may not even agree with him that those convicted of the death penalty deserve mercy. His book on “Just Mercy”  has won numerous awards.  But there is little denying that Stevenson is a voice well worth listening to.

For employers, no doubt Stevenson would encourage employers to considering hiring those who have been convicted of a crime to a second chance after they are released from prison.  It might be doing what Bear’s Smokehouse does — looking at individuals and not judging them solely by their past. As Jamie McDonald, the owner of Bear’s recently said, “Sometimes all they need is somebody to believe in them and give them that chance.”

There may be other times when Stevenson’s advice might apply too; suppose you have an employee who failed to show up for work for three days in a row.  You might just fire them immediately for job abandonment.  But there might be circumstances where you should also try to understand the reasons behind the absence.  Sometimes there will be a good excuse behind it.

If you can find time to listen to Stevenson’s speech, you won’t be disappointed. For those of us who attended the ABA Annual Meeting, it was one that we will never forget.

You might think the title of this post is a bit self-serving or even self-promotional. Is this post just going to be a backhanded way to hire me, an employment law attorney?

I want to dissuade you of the notion because that’s actually not my purpose.  (Really.)

But over the years, I’ve had friends and colleagues struggle with finding the right lawyers for their business.  In some cases, my firm (Shipman & Goodwin LLP) might be a good fit for them. In other situations, whether because of conflicts or costs, we might not be.

What I tell people is to take a step back and ask yourself a series of questions to start with.  I thought I’d share just a few of them to start the conversation:

  1. What are my needs? This is perhaps the hardest, but most important question to ask yourself before you start.  If you don’t know what your needs are, it’s really tough to find a good match.  If a lawsuit is filed against you, then obviously you need an attorney who has experience in the area that can represent you.  But is this a one-off matter that will be handled in a few hours, or is this likely to be much larger and need the resources of a firm that can handle this?
  2. Do I have insurance that might cover the lawfirm’s expenses (or, perhaps dictate what lawyer I must hire)? Some employers have purchased insurance to handle defense of employment-related claims and you might not even know about it. Figure that out first because there’s nothing worse than hiring one lawfirm only to find out that you’re going to have to choose another attorney by the insurance company.
  3. Do I have a budget? And if so, what lawfirms can work within that budget so that I can maximize my value? Most lawfirms charge by the hour, but will work with companies to try to fit a budget.   But will that mean you are working with an inexperienced associate? Or a more senior one or a partner on your issue?
  4. Do I have related issues beyond just employment law that a general practice firm can best handle? Over the last 15 years or so, employment law boutiques have popped up and for some companies, they may be a good fit (particularly if covered by insurance). But for others, they may have needs that go beyond that? Will you need to find 2 or 3 lawfirms to handle your issues, or should you go with one firm that can service all of them.
  5. Should I pick a lawfirm or pick an attorney AT the lawfirm? Much like hiring a doctor, there are some tasks that can be handled by a variety of lawyers. But for other issues, you might need to seek out a lawyer with a particular expertise.
  6. Do I know anyone that is currently using a lawyer that can recommend one to me?  You might have found this post via Google, which is both amazing and scary at the same time.  If you have, don’t choose a lawyer just because Google ranked them. Rather, if at all possible, do your due diligence on the lawyer. Word of mouth and recommendations from friends and colleagues remains a great way.  Keep asking around until you find someone you’re happy with. Don’t just settle on the first name that pops up.
  7. Can I find out more about how the lawyer thinks through his or her online presence? And if so, does it match my style?  Have you always envisioned your lawyer being a “pitbull” who will support your view no matter what? Or do you want someone who can methodically look at your issue and perhaps give you advice you may not want to hear? Or something else? There are plenty of different lawyers with differing styles. Find the one that fits your company.

There’s something I left off the list — ratings.  Whether it’s “Best Lawyers”, or “Super Lawyers” or “Chambers” or “Avvo” or something else, be wary of hiring a lawyer exclusively based on such a rating.  While it certainly doesn’t HURT to have a lawyer on such a list, there’s far more important qualities to look for in a lawyer.

What else should you look for? Add your view in the comments below.

With Memorial Day coming up this weekend, it’s often a time (or it ought to be a time) to reflect on the sacrifices made by our military.  And at the same time, consider how we, as a society, treat our veterans.

This issue was highlighted for me many years ago.  During a court proceeding in which fraudulent behavior of the witness was being discussed, the witness brought up his past military service, perhaps as a way to seek leniency from the court.

To my surprise, rather than dismiss the comment as outright pandering to the court, the judge took a few minutes to express appreciation to the witness for his service and to note that the judicial system should be sensitive to the needs of veterans.

The court didn’t rule in favor of the witness but I was still struck by the judge’s sensitivity.  It was a learning moment for me that all of us involved in the legal system ought to treat veterans in a similar way — with, at a minimum, recognition for their service and respect.  It didn’t matter at that time whether the veteran was honorably discharged or not; it was their service that mattered.

It is with that background in mind that employers should consider the new guidance from the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) entitled “Guide to the Nondiscrimination in Hiring and Employing Connecticut Veterans”.

In it, the CHRO reminds us that employment discrimination on the basis of “status as a veteran” became illegal effective October 1, 2017.

And what is a “veteran”? Anyone who served? Actually no.

According to the statute, “veteran” means “any person honorably discharged from, or released under honorable conditions from active service in, the armed forces.”

Thus, by its own terms, employers cannot discriminate against veterans who received an “honorable discharge” or a discharge “under honorable conditions”.

But the CHRO guidance addresses whether employers can make hiring decisions regarding veterans who have received discharges under the three other primary designations:  “other-than-honorable discharge, bad conduct discharge, and dishonorable discharge.”

The CHRO calls these designations (along with the discharge under honorable conditions) as “less-than-honorable” or “bad paper” discharges.

The CHRO’s guidance suggests that discrimination against someone who received these “bad paper” discharges might also violate the law because of their “disparate impact on veterans of color, LGBT veterans, and veterans with disabilities”.

Thus, the CHRO opines, “reliance on discharge status” may still violate Connecticut’s anti-discrimination laws.

What’s the proposed solution from the CHRO? Several suggestions are offered:

  • “Provide individualized consideration to veterans with less-than-honorable discharges. This means you should consider the nature of the discharge (i.e. why the veteran was discharged—was it for a minor infraction or because of behaviors related to a mental health condition?), the time elapsed since the discharge, the nature of the positions sought and how the discharge is in any way related to the position the veteran is applying for.
  • Second, you should provide the veteran-applicant the opportunity to present her case for why the discharge should not be factored into your hiring decision. You might also consider the presence of mitigating circumstances like PTSD if the veteran discloses them to you.
  • Additionally, for those service members who were discharged due to conduct arising from a disability like PTSD, you have an independent obligation under both state and federal law to provide “reasonable accommodations” such as making the physical work environment accessible or providing a flexible work schedule.
  • Finally, if you contract with a consumer reporting agency such as HireRight or TransUnion to conduct background checks and your background check results in the discovery of information about an individual’s discharge status, you are required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to provide notice to the veteran applicant prior to taking any adverse action….”

Employer Takeaways

The CHRO’s guidance here is reminiscent of guidance issued by the EEOC in the early 2010s regarding the use of criminal background checks and the potential for a racial disparate impact.

At the time, some argued that the agency overstepped its authority because there was nothing that outright prohibited the use of such checks under the law and the reach to “disparate impact” was a step too far.

One could make a similar argument here that the CHRO’s suggestion that discrimination against veterans of all types of discharges might also be covered — after a new law that was passed that prohibited discrimination against only those veterans those who received honorable discharges — might be deemed to be overreach.  The legislature only sought fit to protect veterans with honorable discharges; why can’t employers consider those with “bad paper” discharges as a factor in their hiring decisions?

I’ll leave that for the policy-makers to debate.

For employers, the takeaway should be that the CHRO will be looking at discrimination against veterans who received so-called “bad paper” discharges more closely.  While the law may not outright prohibit it, the CHRO will be looking at whether the employer’s decisions might have a disparate impact on a protected class.

And for employers, making individualized determinations on an applicant based on the applicant’s overall fit and qualifications for the position isn’t a bad practice anyways.

 

 

Like most of America, I spent a few hours this weekend seeing the new Avengers movie.

(Don’t worry – no spoilers here in this post.)

But it’s amazing how much the Marvel Universe has permeated our pop culture the last few years.

So, it is with tongue firmly in cheek, when I use this post to talk about a presentation I’m doing tomorrow with my colleagues that plays off one such segment of these movies.

Entitled, “Guardian of Your Own Galaxy: Making Informed Decisions on Hiring (Legally) and Sharing Information (When Appropriate)”, we’re going to talk a lot about how the hiring decisions of Tony Stark (i.e. Iron Man), Pepper Potts and how Stark Enterprises is run.

Ok, one spoiler alert: No Tony Stark.

Instead, we’re going to talk all things related to the hiring process: Background checks, interview questions, school-related employment history checks, registry checks, credit checks, ban the box, etc.

We’re also going to talk about personnel files and how FOIA requests should be addressed in the context of information about personnel.

All of this is part of my firm’s Labor & Employment Spring Seminar: 2018 Public Sector Legal Update tomorrow.

Star-Lord and Drax will not be there but we hope to see you there.

With the final few working days of the General Assembly session, we’re starting to see the outlines on bills that are pretenders vs. contenders.

Yesterday, the House passed a contender on the subject of pay equity in a bi-partisan vote.  Unless the Senate decides not to bring up the matter (as it decided last year), employers should start preparing for its likely overall passage and implementation later this year.

Four other states (including Massachusetts) have a bill of this type on the books.

So what does House Bill 5386 say exactly?

Well, less than it originally said. At the vote yesterday, the House passed “Amendment A” that eliminated some of the more controversial provisions of House Bill 5386.

Ultimately, the bill would expand the prohibitions on pay secrecy now found in Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-40z, and prohibit an employer from:

Inquiring or directing a third party to inquire about a prospective employee’s wage and salary history unless a prospective employee has voluntarily disclosed such information, except that this subdivision shall not apply to any actions taken by an employer, employment agency or employee or agent thereof pursuant to any federal or state law that specifically authorizes the disclosure or verification of salary history for employment purposes. Nothing in this section shall prohibit an employer from inquiring about other elements of a prospective employee’s compensation structure, as long as such employer does not inquire about the value of the elements of such compensation structure.

So, while there is a general prohibition about asking applicants about their salary history, it does not apply (1) if the prospective employee voluntarily discloses his or her wage and salary history or (2) to any actions taken by an employer, employment agency, or its employees or agents under a federal or state law that specifically authorizes the disclosure or verification of salary history for employment purposes.

The bill also allows an employer to ask about compensation structure, but the employer may not ask about the value of the compensation structure’s elements, except for the value of stocks or equity.

Ultimately, the compromise that was reached was applauded by business groups like the CBIA:

Approval today of legislation addressing gender-based pay inequity is the result of discussions and compromise between multiple parties, including the business community, Democratic and Republican legislative leadership, and the governor’s office, and we thank them for all their commitment to forge a consensus.

If passed by the Senate and signed into law, the bill would take effect January 1, 2019.

Employment law lawyers are asked to review a lot of employment decisions.

If we’re lucky, we’re brought in early in the process when the decision isn’t yet final and where our input can be useful.

Other times though, we’re asked to opine on decisions after the fact.

And truth is, it’s really pretty easy to Monday morning quarterback employment decisions.  Because there is sometimes something that wasn’t thought of before the decision was made.

Often, it may not be important. The employer would have still made the same decision if something else was looked it.

Had you known that there was a law protecting free speech in the workplace, would you still have disciplined the employee for putting up a post on Facebook about his working conditions?

Many employers can’t afford an in-house attorney to bounce their decisions off.

So, for those companies, here are five questions to get you thinking BEFORE you make an employment decision.

(Usual caveat: This isn’t advice, isn’t intended to be comprehensive, and isn’t a substitute for actual legal counsel.)

  1. Is the decision fair? If you can’t answer this question honestly, start over. You’re doing it wrong. Fairness matters to judges, juries, and other employees.
  2. Is the employee going to be surprised by the decision? Good management principles dictate that employees should know what is going on. If you’re terminating an employee for poor performance, did the employee know his or her performance was in jeopardy?
  3. Is the decision well documented? Is there backup to support the decision and is the rationale clear from them? And is the decision being properly communicated to the employee too?
  4. Are there any laws that are implicated by the decision?  This is one area that is tough to fake.  You probably know you can’t fire someone because of their age, but what if you are trying to save money; can you fire the highest paid employee who also happens to be the oldest?
  5. Is there anything else going on that should be taken into consideration? For example, did the employee just return from maternity leave? Has the employee been asking for an accommodation?

These five questions won’t solve all your employment law issues.

But it should give you a head start on figuring out what other questions you should be asking and whether the decision you are about to make is one that you’ll be happy with down the road.

A lot has been made of the recent district court decision on legal job protections for qualifying medical marijuana patients.

But the decision has another piece that has been overlooked and which may cause employers some heartburn as well.

The “Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress” cause of action has been on life support for the last decade or so as courts have limited its applicability for claims arising in the workplace.

Indeed, the Connecticut Supreme Court held back in 2002 that a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress cannot arise from conduct occurring in an ongoing employment relationship, as distinguished from conduct occurring in the termination of employment.

But what should happen to claims by job applicants that allege that rescinded job offers have caused emotional distress?

The recent decision by Judge Meyer allows that claim to continue and denied an employer’s motion to dismiss.

It found that the allegation of the complaint — and specifically, that the employer knew that plaintiff suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and then waited to rescind her job offer until one day before she was scheduled to begin work (and after she had already left her prior job), was sufficient to establish a possible claim. The allegations of the complaint were that such actions caused plaintiff to experience severe emotional distress, including anxiety, sleeplessness, and loss of appetite.

The Court, in its ruling, analyzed the decisions in Connecticut in the last 15 years and found that “Connecticut courts have not squarely decided whether a rescinded job offer could serve as the basis for a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim”:

The practical,workplace-related reasons … for precluding a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress on the basis of events occurring in an ongoing employment relationship do not apply in the context of an employer who rescinds a job offer before the prospective employee can begin work. … Because the withdrawal of a job offer is more akin to termination than to conduct occurring in an ongoing employment relationship, it seems consistent … that a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress could arise from the withdrawal of a job offer.

Although the decision itself shouldn’t necessarily change how employers manage their job offers (or withdrawals of job offers), it is a reminder to treat job applicants with some care.  If an employer does need to withdraw the job offer, it should be done in a way to minimize the harm to the applicant.

The worry, of course, with the court’s decision is that there are going to be cases that allege that the mere withdrawal of the job offer is sufficient to state a claim; the court’s decision doesn’t go that far and it seems that the plaintiff’s allegation of PTSD was a significant factor in allowing the claim to proceed.

But employers who face such claims in the lawsuit should be sure to review the circumstances to see where on the spectrum the particular claim falls.

I’ll confess. I’m excited about today’s post.  It’s hard to find something new to do after nearly 10 years of blogging, but I think today’s post is pretty innovative. Unless you read The New York Times “The Conversation” which we’ve tried to copy emulate here.  Except this post (and hopefully others) will be called “The Dialogue”.  Somehow different, right? 

Today’s post tackles some of the legal issues regarding hiring but does so in a back-and-forth format between a management-side attorney (myself) and an employee-side attorney (Nina Pirrotti).  I’d insert a reference to the letters of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr discussing the issues of the day, but then I remembered that ended in a duel, and it’s not exactly what I was foreseeing here.  I think Nina and I can exchange some thoughts without trying to kill one another. 

Anyways, Nina and I have tried something new below.  Nina is a partner at the law firm of Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald and Pirrotti, where she represents employees in all types of matters.  She’s a past-President of the Connecticut Employment Lawyers Association and a frequent presenter on employment law topics.   My thanks to her for being brave enough to try this with me.  Let me know what you think. 

The Dialogue Begins

Dan Schwartz: Welcome to the blog and thanks for engaging in this discussion on employment law. I promise that we here at the blog don’t bite and we pay all of our workers (me) minimum wage. (Ok, that’s a lie. I get nothing for writing the blog, but moving on….)

I know we were planning on talking about some developments in the world of hiring and employment law, but I can’t pass up the opportunity to ask you something about the new Trump Administration.  From the perspective of an attorney who typically represents employees, what are one or two things you’re keeping an eye out for?

nina_t_pirrotti1-150x150Nina Pirrotti: Thank you, Dan, for your warm welcome.  We plaintiffs’ employment lawyers have been feeling mighty chilly since November 8th and have been bracing ourselves ever since for even more frigid temps ahead.  Ironically, I felt the impact of Trump’s election virtually immediately.  On November 9th, I flew to Chicago and spoke at the ABA’s annual Labor & Employment conference.   

The topic of the panel on which I spoke revolved around laws which prohibit employer retaliation against employees for discussing their wages.  The laws are designed to protect female employees who are trying to figure out whether they are being paid less than their male counterparts.  

I was all set to talk about the Paycheck Fairness Act which would have expanded the protection provided by those laws and was expected to be one of the first pieces of legislation signed by Hillary Clinton.  As you can imagine, my plane ride there was consumed with a furious re-write of my outline! The next day I flew to Dallas to participate in the semi-annual Executive Board meeting for the National Employment Lawyers’ Association where we also had to nimbly adjust our focus to reflect the new (surreal) reality.  

I did not thaw out after learning that Trump nominated Andy Puzder, CEO of chain restaurants, including Hardees (which, sadly, is the maker of my all -time favorite breakfast biscuit) to head the Department of Labor.  Puzder’s employee track record, which includes opposing overtime and minimum wage laws and underpaying his own workers is abysmal.   

I can only hope that the rumors that he might back out of consideration prove to be true.  I did feel  a glimmer of hope after I learned this week that Trump has tapped EEOC Commissioner Victoria A. Lipnic as Acting Chair of EEOC.  Lipnic, who was nominated by President Obama, has served as EEOC Commissioner since 2010.

I was also mildly heartened by Trump’s expression of (granted, lukewarm) support in his campaign for pay equity laws and paid FMLA leave, both championed by Hillary Clinton and I can only hope that the person who might most positively influence him in that regard (Ivanka) is able to carry the day.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration does seem poised to reverse or suspend the changes to Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime rules which went into effect on December 1, 2016.  

Of course, the most important event that we plaintiffs’ employment lawyers are waiting for is the announcement of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee who would replace the very conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.  That person may likely cast the deciding vote on cases that impact the rights of workers in a myriad of ways.  Unfortunately for us, the three oldest justices – Ruth Bader Ginsburg Kennedy  and Breyer  – are liberal or moderate and Trump may have more than one bite at that proverbial apple during his (hopefully only) four-year stint. 

Since your excellent blog has national appeal and one or more of these justices might actually read it, I hereby urge all three of them to eat well, exercise moderately and avoid all high risk activities! Continue Reading The Dialogue: Hiring Employees the Right Way (From Different Sides)

So did everyone enjoy Thanksgiving? I’m still recovering from my vacation so in the meantime, my colleagues, Brenda Eckert and Ashley Mendoza, return today with a post about updated I-9 forms that all employers MUST start using in January 2017.  If you do any hiring, this post ought to be front and center to fulfill your obligations. 

eckertashleymendoza1On November 14, 2016, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) published a revised version of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification (“Form I-9”).  This isn’t the first time it has done so but a new set of revisions means more changes for employers.

Established by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”), Form I-9 is used to verify the identity and employment authorization of all individuals, including U.S. citizens, hired for employment in the United States. All U.S. employers, regardless of size, must ensure proper completion and retention of Form I-9 for each new employee hired after November 6, 1986.

Beginning on January 22, 2017, employers must only use the revised Form I-9 version dated November 14, 2016. USCIS has allowed a grace period through January 21, 2017 when employers may continue to use the Form I-9 version dated March 8, 2013.  Both the revised Form I-9 and the prior version may be found on USCIS’ website.

Generally, the revisions made to Form I-9 were designed to make it more user-friendly, to reduce errors and to enhance form completion using a computer. Some of the most notable changes include:

  • Informational prompts are included on the form;
  • Employees only need to provide “other last names used” in Section 1, Employee Information and Attestation, rather than all “other names used”;
  • The employee certification in Section 1 is streamlined for certain foreign nationals;
  • There is an addendum page to enter multiple preparers and translators, when applicable; and
  • In Section 2, Employer or Authorized Representative Review and Verification, there is a dedicated area to enter additional information that employers have previously been required to notate in the margins of the form.

Further enhancements were made to the Form I-9 that will appear when completing it electronically on a computer. Users will see:

  • Checks to certain fields to ensure information is entered correctly;
  • Drop-down lists and calendars;
  • Instructions on the screen that users can access to complete each field; and
  • Buttons that will allow users to access the instructions electronically, print the form, and clear the form to start over.

The Form I-9 instructions have been updated to include a field-by-field guide to completion, and to address common issues that arise during completion. The revised instructions have also been separated into a distinct document from the revised Form I-9, in line with USCIS’ general practice.

While USCIS has indicated it will soon issue a revised M-274, Handbook for Employers, Guidance for Completing Form I-9, it has yet to do so. In the meantime, USCIS refers users to the revised Form I-9 instructions, found on its website for the most up-to-date information.

Notably, the list of acceptable documents that the employee may present in order to establish identity and employment authorization remains the same. 

While the Form I-9 may seem relatively straightforward to employers, its completion can be complex and the rules surrounding it constantly evolve, which leads to large fines and other penalties for not completing and retaining the forms correctly.

For this reason, we recommend reaching out to an experienced immigration attorney when questions arise regarding the Form I-9.