Employer Liability When Employees Use Internet Communications For Offensive Purposes

By admin on February 28th, 2010

What happens when you have a rogue or even out of control employee that uses an office computer to send or even post threats of great bodily harm or uses an office computer to generate other highly offensive communications? Can an employer who ends up being sued for such conduct assert a defense of immunity under the provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230. This particular federal law defense of immunity actually does preempt inconsistent state law that might otherwise impose liability in certain circumstances. The Act immunizes “provider[s]… of an interactive computer service” (the employer) where “another information content provider” (the employee) has initiated the offending activity.

While the facts considered recently by a California Court of Appeal in Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790 are unquestionably extreme and will not likely be encountered in garden-variety employment situations, the CDA immunity defense could well apply in more benign or commonplace circumstances as a result of the court’s ruling in this particular case.

In the Delfino case, the court considered a situation in which unbeknownst to his employer, a very angry and upset employee sends anonymous emails to various adversaries. He also created posts on Internet bulletin boards, threatening great bodily harm and death to these various individuals.

In making this illicit communications, the employee used the computer systems of his employer. The victims of these horrible threats and postings ended up contacting the FBI. The FBI in turn traced the emails and postings to the employee’s office computer. This was accomplished by by tracking the emails and postings back through the originating IP address.

The employee admitted that he engaged in the in the conduct of which he was accused. In the end, criminal charges are filed against him.

The employer terminated the employee. The victims of the employee’s threats sued the employee and the employer for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision or retention. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed the employer was aware that the employee was using its computer system to threaten them. The further argued that the employee took no action to prevent the co-defendant employee from continuing to make threats over the Internet.

The ultimate question before the court in the case was: Can the employer be liable under these circumstances?

Some may consider this particular scenario far fetched. The case was presented as one of first impression in Delfino v. Agilent. The California appellate court determined that an employer could in fact assert the immunity defense under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230.

In asking the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment, in which it asserted that the employer was a “provider… of an interactive computer service”, and therefore entitled to complete immunity under the CDA. Section 230(c)(1) states that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The statute also preempts inconsistent state law that would impose liability, saying: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” Section 230(e)(3), italics added.

The primary goal of the CDA has been to control the exposure of minors to indecent material over the Internet. Nonetheless, one of its other important purposes is “to encourage [Internet] service providers to self-regulate the dissemination of offensive materials over their services.” This was determined in the case of Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (4th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 327, 331, cert. den. (1998) 524 U.S. 937.

The CDA also been enforced in a manner so as to avoid the chilling effect on Internet free speech that would occur if tort liability ended up being imposed on companies that do not create potentially harmful messages but are simply intermediaries for their delivery. Id. at 330-331.

Accordingly, Section 230(c)(2) immunizes from liability an interactive computer service provider or user who makes good faith efforts to restrict access to material deemed objectionable. However, the provider must make a good faith effort to restrict access to material that is deemed objectionable.

Drawing on prior CDA cases that actually were beyond the employment context, the Delfino court ruled that there are three essential elements that a defendant must establish in order to claim section 230 immunity. These three elements are determined by the court are:

(a) the defendant is a provider or user of an interactive computer service;

(b) the cause of action treats the defendant as a publisher or speaker of information; and

(c) the information at issue is provided by another information content provider. Gentry v. eBay, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 816, 830.

In considering the first element (whether the employer was a provider or user of an interactive computer service), the court ruled the question a matter of first impression. In its judgment, the court specifically held: “We are aware of no case that has held that a corporate employer is a provider of interactive computer services under circumstances such as those presented here. But several commentators have opined that an employer that provides its employees with Internet access through the company’s internal computer system is among the class of parties potentially immune under the CDA.” Delfino, 145 Cal.App.4th at 805.

Prior courts had interpreted the term “interactive computer service” broadly in their own decisions and rulings. (For example, in Batzel v. Smith (9th Cir. 2003) 333 F.3d 1018, 1030, fn. 15, cert. den. (2004) 541 U.S. 1085), the court held that the employer was a “provider of interactive computer services” under the CDA. Id. At 806.

Considering the second element of the test, (whether the cause of action treated the defendant as a publisher or speaker of information), the court found that plaintiffs, in alleging that the employer was liable for the employee’s cyber threats, sought to treat the employer “as a publisher or speaker” of those messages. (sec. 230(c)(1).) Id.

On the last element of the test, (whether the information at issue was provided by another information content provider), there was no dispute that the employee was the party who had authored the offensive e-mails and postings. Moreover, there was no evidence that the employer played any role at all in “the creation or development” of these threatening and offensive messages and postings. Id. at 807-08.

In the end, the court concluded that the employer satisfied all three of the elements necessary to establish immunity under the CDA. Therefore, the court of appeal did affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. The court of appeals agreed that the grant of immunity under the CDA was proper pursuant to the terms and conditions of that law.

In its decision, the court also noted that, even if plaintiffs’ claims had not been barred under section 230(c)(1), granting summary judgment to the employer was nonetheless proper. The court reached this conclusion because plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case on their claims against the employer. Id. at 808. In this regard, the court specifically held that there was no indication that the employer ratified in any manner the employee’s conduct, and that the employer could not be liable under theory of respondeat superior. Id. at 810-12. In addition, there was not even any evidence that the employer was even aware of the employee’s conduct. Id. at 815.

In its holding and order, the court affirmed the long established principle that an employer will not be held vicariously liable for an employee’s malicious or tortious conduct in a situation in which the employee substantially deviates from his employment duties for personal purposes. The court additionally offered what can be considered an important teaching point on the theory and principle of ratification under California law.

The court noted that imposing derivative liability on the employer for an employees actions need not be founded on respondeat superior. Such liability can also be based upon the doctrine of ratification as discussed in Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods, Inc. (1998) 65 Cal. App.4th 833, 852). In that case, the court observed that an employee’s actions may be ratified after the fact by the employer’s voluntary election to adopt the employee’s conduct. This is done, in essence, by treating the conduct as that of the employer’s own. Id. at 810.

In considering what evidence can support the ratification theory, the Delfino court cited the California Civil Code 2339. The court, in citing that provision, determined that an employer’s failure to discharge an employee after knowledge of his or her wrongful acts may be used as evidence that can support ratification of that employee’s conduct.

In the end, there were a number of lessons that have been learned in the aftermath of Delfino. This includes the fact that although employers can take some degree comfort that the CDA can offer them immunity if out of line employees make offensive or threatening Internet postings or emails, conservative employers should take corrective actions immediately against offending employees when such conduct is discovered. This action potentially should include termination, if the circumstances so warrant. Employers should institute certain policies and procedures that prohibit employees from using the employer’s computers to post or send threatening or offensive information. Moreover, since CDA immunity will be lost if the employer cannot establish that the information at issue was “provided by another information content provider”, cautious employers will also need to avoid any conduct that would suggest the employer has promoted, sponsored, initiated, or ratified the offending material in any way, shape or form.

La Law Defenders’ Role on Various Employment Stages

By admin on February 27th, 2010

Los Angeles is one of the most highly developed and economically stable cities in the world. It is one of the leaders in international trade, entertainment, aviation, apparel and tourism.

 

It is also a home to various industries such as media production, finance, telecommunications, law, modern medicine, health and transportation.

 

As it is, employment in Los Angeles is without a doubt on the rise. Consequently, employment problems will surely arise.

 

Whenever employment problems occur, victims may turn to Los Angeles Employment Law Defenders. They are helpful whether the problem arises in the pre employment, stage, employment proper or post employment stage.

 

Stages of Employment

Employees must be on guard of the different stages of employment. This is because employment problems may happen not only when an individual is rendering actual services but also during the application stage. The various stages of employment include pre-employment, employment and post employment.

 

Pre-employment Stage

Hiring

Under federal law, an employer does not have to hire most qualified applicant. However, an employer cannot base his/her hiring decisions on personal circumstances of an applicant that are not work-related. These circumstances often include:

 

Age

Race

Gender

Religious Beliefs

Nationality

Disability

 

During an interview, the interviewer cannot ask questions relating to these circumstances. It can only ask questions on personal characteristics if it could prevent the applicant from fulfilling the job’s requirements.

 

References

A previous employer may be asked of any non-confidential information about a previous employee. This information must be true and must not maliciously harm the employee. Otherwise, he/she may be liable for defamation in case of false information.

 

To avoid any liability, it has become a normal practice for employers to comment only on past employee’s job performance. They confirm only dates of hire and separation, plus wage or salary information.

Employment

It is during the employment stage that various violations of employees’ rights are taking place. These violations include discrimination, illegal dismissal, nonpayment of holiday pay, harassment and other work related disputes.

 

Employees at Will

In California, employees are presumed to be “at will” or those who can be terminated for any legal reason.

 

Generally, employees who signed an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons enumerated in the contract. In California, the at-will presumption can be overcome by evidence showing that employer’s power to terminate is limited in some way.

 

Workplace Protection

Federal and state laws require that most employers provide a place of employment that is safe and free from hazards. Otherwise, an employee may anonymously complain about an unsafe work environment. The employee, in turn, is protected from employer’s retribution.

 

Workplace Injury

Worker’s compensation laws are enacted to compensate employees who have been injured or killed in work related accidents. Dependents of a deceased or injured employee may also be entitled to benefits.

 

Employers, on the other hand, may be protected by limits placed on the amount of an employee’s recovery depending upon the classification of his or her disability: permanent total disability, temporary total disability or temporary partial disability.

 

Sexual Harassment

An employer may be liable to an employee for any act of “sexual harassment”. It includes any unwelcome sexual advances, conduct or other physical or verbal acts of a sexual nature, which occur in the workplace.

 

A professional help is required in determining the existence of harassment because the laws provide what conduct, or pattern of conduct, constitutes actionable sexual harassment.

 

Discrimination and Wrongful Termination

Employers are not allowed to terminate or discriminate against employees for the following reasons:

 

Age

Race

Sexual Preference

Religion

Nationality

Disability

Pregnancy

 

Post-employment

Unemployment Benefits

Unemployment benefits are based on combinations of federal and state statutes.

Unemployment compensation programs provide monetary compensation to workers who have been illegally terminated. Employees who voluntarily terminate their employment for “good cause” may also be entitled to benefits.

 

In California, the Employment Development Department oversees the unemployment insurance program pursuant to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Code and Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.

 

An understanding of these various employment stages could spell a lot of difference in pursuing your claims. If you are in Los Angeles, its employment lawyers are always ready to defend you in court or settlement.

 

Our http://www.expertlosangelesattorney.com/EmploymentLaw.html> Los Angeles Employment Law Defenders expertly assist our clients in pursuing their employment claims. For a  free case analysis just log on to our website.

 

Find a Legal Advice of Employment Lawyer Over Employment Issues

By admin on February 25th, 2010

Employment according to dictionary means service. Employment involves two parties; employer and employee. Usually there exists a form of contract or a set of terms and conditions in employment. The employer is the person who holds power and is ideally in the authoritarian position and the employee is the person hired to render service/labour. Employment is a very important facet of a working person’s life. To him, employment defines his existence; his life-style, standard of living and bare necessities of life are regulated by employment.

Individuals, in most cases are competent enough to manage employment issues or any employment related issues themselves. But in some cases, the situation becomes grave and tricky and legal help is asked for. There are well-defined laws in every form of employment. However, with changes in every field and every aspect of life, these employment laws are changing rapidly. Even the most tactful and competent employer seeks help of an Employment lawyer to keep things in control. This is from one point of view, i.e. the employer’s side of the story. Employees, working and serving whole-heartedly often become victims of ill-treatment, sudden dismissal or discrimination. Many king-size organizations have trade unions to maintain employee interests and job security. But they also need the advice of employment lawyers to save their interests fighting against the employer.

Duncan Lewis & Co. is one of the leading and fastest growing law firms in U.K. Since its birth in 1998, Duncan Lewis & Co. have earned both name and fame in serving country’s corporate bodies and individual private clients with quality legal advice and winning law cases of any form. Duncan Lewis & Co. is highly reputed for settling the most complicated employment disputes. Employment law is changing everyday with all new forms of modernity and you really need to take expert assistance to sort any employment issues.

Our clientele ranges from individual Employees to small or big Employers and we render our service to all of them alike. We assist employees in case of sudden change of employment contract, sudden dismissal, racial/sexual harassment, bullying at work, holiday/sick pay or maternity rights, employee representation at Tribunals and settling any other unique employment hazards. Our employment department is available to help you in advising or making any employment legislation. It includes all issues regarding drafting of contracts, making agreements and negotiations, dismissals, defending claims against discrimination and the like.

Duncan Lewis & Co. helps you resolve any employment related issues or disputes at competitive rates and you are sure to get value for money. Clients are satisfied by the quality service they get from us and contact us time and again, whenever needed. For any employment related advice, visit duncanlewis.co.uk for immediate results.

Importance Of Employment Contracts – Know Their Value

By admin on February 23rd, 2010

Anyone who works for an employer for a regular wage or salary automatically has a contract of employment, regardless of whether it is written or not. The majority of employees work under open-ended contracts of employment. In other words, the contract continues until such time as the employer or employee ends it.

Many other employees however, work under fixed-term or specified-purpose contracts which are contracts which end on a specified date or when a specific task is completed.
The contract of employment will include some or all of the following elements (regardless of whether the employer and employee have specified them or not):

The terms that the courts say are in every contract of employment. Examples include the duty of every employer to provide a safe workplace and the duty of every employee to carry out the job to the best of his/her ability. This part of the contract is occasionally referred to as “common law”.

Terms that must be part of the contract as a result of laws passed. Examples include the right to take maternity leave. Such terms are part of the contract of employment even if the employer and employee do not specifically include them and replace any agreement between the employer and employee not to apply the particular law. So, the statutory right to take maternity leave overrides any agreement between the employer and employee that the employee will not take maternity leave.

Terms and conditions states must be in every contract, for example, the right of an employee to join a trade union.
Collective agreements

Joint Labor Committee Regulations

In addition, custom and practice in a particular workplace may form part of a contract. An example would be a particular level of overtime pay for employees.

In the case of these items instead of giving each employee the details in writing, the employer may refer an employee to other documents, for example, a pension scheme booklet or a collective agreement, provided that the employee has easy access to such documents.

The statement of terms must indicate the reference period being used by the employer for the purposes of the calculation of the employee’s entitlements under the Minimum Wage Act, 2000. (Under that Act the employer may calculate the employee’s minimum wage entitlement over a reference period that is no less than one week and no greater than one month).

The statement of terms must also inform the employee that he/she has the right to ask the employer for a written statement of his/her average hourly rate of pay for any reference period (except the current reference period) in the 12 months prior to the date of the employee’s request.

Note. Specific provisions in contract of employment
In recent times, some employers are adding in specific provisions in contract of employment that limit the ability of employees to work in a certain sector, with certain suppliers, clients, for a period following termination of employment. (For example, it may specifically state that the employee cannot work in a certain sector, with or for suppliers or clients of the former employer, etc.). There is nothing in employment law in that strictly forbids this, but there is no provision in employment law that allows this either.

Essentially, this is an issue of contract law – that is, the contract of employment signed and agreed between the employer and employee. If you have any concerns about this issue, you are strongly advised to seek legal advice from a competent legal professional in advance of signing this contract of employment. However, even if the contract of employment is signed, you are always free to seek such legal advice. Attorney fees can vary widely so shop around and obtain some quotes for legal advice before you proceed.

Note. Probationary period
The contract can include a probationary period and can allow for this period to be extended. The Unfair Dismissals Acts will not apply to the dismissal of an employee during a period at the beginning of employment when he/she is on probation or undergoing training provided that:

* the contract of employment is in writing
* the duration of probation or training is one year or less and is specified in the contract.

The above exclusion from the Acts will not apply if the dismissal results from trade union membership or activity, pregnancy related matters, or entitlements under the maternity protection, parental leave, adoptive leave and career’s leave legislation.

Changes to your contract of employment.

Changes to your contract of employment can occur due to a change in the law, but otherwise, changes must be agreed between your employer and yourself. The requirement for both the employer’s and the employee’s consent to changes in the terms of the contract is part of contract law.

From the above information you will see that the contract of employment is a very important document to have. Whenever you get hired, ensure that your new employer offers you this kind of security. Be cautious of employers who don’t give contract of employment.

Not Knowing the Rules Governing Employee or Self Employed Status Could Cost Thousands

By admin on February 22nd, 2010

When there is a doubt over status of a worker being an employee or self employed the employer must make the correct decision or face potential serious penalties relating to a change in status that can be applied retrospectively. In the absence of comprehensive legislation guidelines have emerged and must be applied to avoid potential unexpected liabilities of tens of thousands of pounds.

The employment status of a worker can be a veritable minefield for an employer if the wrong decision is made. Should an employer decide the status of a worker is self employed and treat that worker as self employed rather than deducting tax and national insurance the employer could be at risk of incurring a major financial liability for tax and national insurance deductions if the status of the worker is subsequently changed following an Inland Revenue enquiry.

If the status of a worker is changed from self employment to employee by the Inland Revenue the amounts paid to that worker would be regarded by the Revenue as not the gross pay but the net pay after deductions of income tax and national insurance. The re-assessment after adding the income tax and both employee and employer national insurance could increase the cost of that worker by more than 50%.

If a workers employment status is determined as incorrect by the tax authority the date at which the employment status was employee rather than self employment would also be determined. Such a status change and the applicable date could be applied several years retrospectively leading to a significant financial burden.

An employer cannot choose the status of a worker as employee or self employed. The status of the worker is dependent upon the rules of engagement and the working practices that ensue. There is also a tendency with long term engagement of self employed workers for circumstances to change and some changes could change the status of that worker from self employment to employee in the view of the tax authority.

The first essential question to be answered by an employer is whether the worker is being engaged under a contract of employment or whose services are being contracted. Due to the potential serious financial consequences of making the wrong decision it is important that the rules of engagement are set out and agreed in writing.

There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a contract of service and what constitutes a contract for services in relation to income tax and national insurance. In the absence of a statutory definition the interpretation of the nature of the relationship is open to debate and previous court judgments.

General rules which would indicate a worker was an employee would include scenarios such as is the work supervised, does someone state when, what and where work is done and how it should be done. Can the worker be moved from one task to another and does the worker work to set hours and paid on a set basis of hourly, weekly or monthly or receive bonuses or overtime payments. The existence of such conditions would indicate employee status not self employment.

There are many other factors which may determine employment status, for example if the worker takes the business vehicle home each day that would indicate employee status. Should the worker provide his own tools and equipment to perform the tasks and bear the costs of doing this then self employment would be indicated but should the employer provide such equipment then workers status is more likely to be interpreted as employee.

Factors which may determine self employment would include the worker using someone else to carry out the tasks at their expense, whether the work contained personal financial risk to the worker, has a fixed price been agreed regardless of time taken to perform the work. Other self employment factors would be if the worker can choose when and how to perform the tasks, whether they also work for other organisations and whether unsatisfactory work has to be corrected in the workers own time and expense.

The conditions under which a worker is engaged may be ambiguous and that can lead to problems as long term self employed workers and the relationship with the employer tends over time to slip into a pattern that might be interpreted as closer to that of an employee rather than self employment. In such circumstances what may have started as self employment may later be interpreted as employment in which case the specter of that workers cost being increased to the business by 50% going back years could become reality.

In all cases where there is doubt over the employment status the final decision becomes one of providing evidence and the weight of evidence for one side or the other. Often individual cases can rest on what may have been regarded as insignificant items at the time. For example granting the worker benefits normally associated with employment such as paid leave and even such items as access to subsidized canteen facilities could weigh the balance in favour of employment.

If an employer has doubts on the status of a worker the rules of engagement should be set out in writing at the outset and clarify the status as employee or self employment. If there is any doubt then the safest practice would be to treat the worker as an employee and deduct income tax and national insurance or engage the worker under the CIS sub contractors rules.

As a rough guide to the financial consequences of making the wrong decision or circumstances changing the status of a worker from self employment to employment without deducting tax and national insurance consider this example.

The worker has performed work for the business for 3 years as self employed and has been paid 25,000 pounds per annum. The normal work pattern is interpreted by the Inland Revenue as that of an employee not self employment.

The Inland Revenue could determine income tax of 5,000 pounds and national insurance of 2,000 pounds should have been deducted plus employer national insurance of a further 2,000 pounds. Over three years the bill for getting the decision wrong could result in an unexpected bill for the employer of 27,000 pounds. For a small business that level of additional cost could be the difference between survival and liquidation.

State Laws and Employer I-9 Employment Verification Responsibilities

By admin on February 20th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of Relevant State Laws

State Laws Requiring Use of E-Verify

Arizona
Arizona

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Laws Targeting Employers On Immigration Status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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