Tweet Post to Your Wall.

Employer vigilance key to avoiding penalties

     In the face of heightened immigration enforcement, Midwest ag employers must dot their I’s and cross their T’s while ensuring they don’t cross the line.

     So says California lawyer Anthony Raimondo, who suggests seemingly burdensome worker paperwork may be the farmer’s best protection against federal scrutiny or sanctions.

     Amid gridlock over immigration policy and public concerns about undocumented foreign workers, federal labor enforcement is on the rise. Federal Form I-9 verifies a worker’s identity and legal authority to work in the U.S.

     However, I-9 filings have become “such a routine part of the hiring process” that employers may neglect to properly review worker documentation, Raimondo warned. While it’s not unlawful simply to hire an unauthorized worker, he stressed “it’s illegal to knowingly hire an undocumented worker.”

     In some cases, “the I-9’s the thing that will keep an employer out of jail,” he said. The lawyer urges producers to periodically audit I-9 paperwork and train farm managers and supervisors in the verification process.

     Michigan dairy producers Johannes Martinus Verhaar and Anthonia Marjanne Verhaar were sentenced in 2011 to lengthy probation and fined nearly $735,000 for hiring and “harboring” illegal aliens. The pair was charged with failing to adequately verify worker eligibility.

     “Ironically, we’re seeing enforcement more in the Midwest than in California,” Raimondo told FarmWeek at last week’s American Farm Bureau Federation Labor Conference in Rosemont. “Strangely enough, in California agriculture, the enforcement’s been somewhat limited. In the Midwest, we’ve seen the fines, the jail time.”

     An employee must complete an I-9 before performing any work; employers must provide new hires a list of acceptable identification and work authorization documents. For a list of documents, visit {uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf}.

     Employers should be able to “attest under threat of perjury” that documents appeared legitimate and immediately fire workers they know to be undocumented, Raimondo insists. They nonetheless walk a federal tightrope.

     For example, they can’t require a worker to provide a Social Security number. Employers shouldn’t fire a worker simply because they receive a federal “mismatch letter” questioning Social Security information, Raimondo said.

     He recommends employers giving workers a 90- to 120-day deadline to resolve discrepancies with the Social Security Administration, to avoid discrimination or other claims.    

     “We can’t presume someone is an undocumented immigrant because of their appearance or clothing or the color of their skin or their ethnicity,” Raimondo stressed.

     “If people can produce documents that are legitimate or appear legitimate, the employer has to respect those documents and hire them.”