Employment eligibility Violation

EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY - VIOLATION PENALTIES

Penalties for Prohibited I-9 and Employment Eligibility Verification (EEV) Practices
Penalties for Unlawful Employment

Civil Penalties
DHS may impose penalties if an investigation reveals that you knowingly hired or knowingly continued to employ an unauthorized alien, or failed to comply with the employment eligibility verification requirements with respect to employees hired after November 6, 1986. DHS will issue a Notice of Intent to Fine (NIF) when it intends to impose penalties. If you receive a NIF, you may request a hearing before an administrative law judge. If your request for a hearing is not received within 30 days, DHS will impose the penalty and issue a Final Order, which cannot be appealed.

Hiring or Continuing to Employ Unauthorized Aliens
If DHS determines that you have knowingly hired unauthorized aliens (or are continuing to employ aliens knowing that they are or have become unauthorized to work in the United States), it may order you to cease and desist from such activity and pay a civil money penalty as follows:
Failing to Comply With Form I-9 Requirements
If you fail to properly complete, retain, and/or make available for inspection Forms I-9 as required by law, you may face civil money penalties in an amount of not less than $110 and not more than $1,100 for each violation. In determining the amount of the penalty, DHS considers:
1. The good faith of the employer;
3. The seriousness of the violation;
4. The history of previous violations of the employer.

Criminal Penalties
Engaging in a pattern or practice of knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized aliens
Persons or entities who are convicted of having engaged in a pattern or practice of knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens (or continuing to employ aliens knowing that they are or have become unauthorized to work in the United States) after November 6, 1986, may face fines of up to $3,000 per employee and/or 6 months imprisonment.

Unlawful Anti-Discrimination Provisions (UIREP)—Civil Penalties
If an investigation reveals that you engaged in unfair immigration-related employment practices (UIREP) under the INA, OSC may take action. Educating all personnel involved in hiring about complying with the employer sanctions and antidiscrimination laws about the requirements of these laws.

Document Abuse UIREP—Civil Penalties
Employers who commit in violation of the anti-discrimination provision of the INA may similarly be ordered to pay a civil money penalty of not less than $110 and not more than $1,100 for each individual discriminated against.

Title VII Corrective Actions
National origin discrimination under Title VII
If you are found to have committed national origin discrimination under Title VII, you may be ordered to stop the prohibited practice and to take one or more corrective steps, including:

1. Hiring, reinstating or promoting with back pay and retroactive seniority;
2. Posting notices to employees about their rights and about the employer’s obligations; and/or
3. Compensatory damages for intentional discrimination under Title VII. Punitive damages may be available if you acted with malice or reckless indifference.

Civil Document Fraud
If a DHS investigation reveals that an individual has knowingly committed or participated in acts relating to document fraud, DHS may take action. DHS will issue a Notice of Intent to Fine (NIF) when it intends to impose penalties. Individuals found by DHS or an administrative law judge to have violated section 274C of the INA may be ordered to cease and desist from such behavior and to pay a civil (money) penalty. Addtional Criminal Charges may also apply

RICO Penalties for Prohibited I-9 and Employment Eligibility Verification (EEV) PracticesActions by Competitors RICO Overview

Many employers are not aware that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) has been creatively used by firms against competitors for certain criminal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) violations.
A RICO lawsuit may be brought in either Federal or State court. RICO provides for the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages), costs, and attorney's fees. In addition, a court can order an individual or company to divest itself of any interest in the enterprise and to refrain from engaging in any commercial activity.
RICO provides extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise or organization.
Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes, includimh 27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes, within a 10-year period with similar purpose or results, can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity."
In many cases, a government threat the of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges. RICO includes a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers" under RICO. The plaintiff must prove the existence of a "criminal enterprise".
An enterprise can be a legal entity, or an individual, or a relatively loose-knit group of people or legal entities. Most courts will accept any informal group as an association-in-fact enterprise so long as the group possesses three characteristics:
An ascertainable structure distinct from that inherent in the pattern of racketeering.
The common purpose of making money can support the enterprise element of a RICO claim.
RICO requires that the defendant "conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs". This generally includes not only upper management but also lower-rung participants in the enterprise who are under the direction of upper management.
If an employer is charged, let alone convicted of a RICO crime it isvery likely its competitiors will pile on with civil RICO actions.
RICO and Employment of Unauthorized Workers
In 1996, Congress expanded RICO to include violations of federal immigration law. RICO Liability for Encouraging or Employing Illegal Aliens
The INA makes it unlawful to encourage illegal immigration or employ illegal aliens, both of which were included as predicate offenses under RICO. Other INA prohibitions under RICO include encouraging or inducing illegal immigration, smuggling, and harboring illegal aliens. Companies competitively injured by a competitor's employment of unauthorized workers have a remedy under RICO based on business lost as a result of a competitor's pattern of hiring illegal aliens, for example enabling the vioilator to reduce costs and underbid the plaintiff on new contracts.
RICO actions have also been brought by groups of employees who claimed that due to their employer's practice of hiring illegal aliens, their wages were depressed. There have been employee actions under RICO based on changed working conditions. Any company or person that knowingly hires, within any 12-month period, at least ten illegal aliens, commits a criminal violation of the INA, and is liable under RICO.
RICO Liability for encouraging or Inducing an Alien to Come to, Enter, or Reside in the U.S.
"Encouraging" relates to actions taken to convince the illegal alien to come to this country or to stay in this country. Creative lawyers can develop a plethora of theories how an employer or competitor encourages illegal aliens already in the United States to remain or induces further illegal immigration.
RICO Liability for Harboring an Illegal Alien
Other violations of the INA may serve as RICO predicate acts in addition to employing illegal aliens ands encouraging illegal immigration. "Harboring" illegal aliens, if done for financial gain, is a predicate act. The sheltering need not be clandestine, and harboring covers aliens arrested outdoors, as well as in a building. This provision includes harboring an alien who entered the U.S. legally, but has since lost his/her legal status, including out of status and visa overstay.
Actual or Consstructive Knowledge or Reckless Disregard
The primary hurdle in establishing illegal hiring as a RICO predicate act is the knowledge requirement. What constitutes "knowledge" or "constructive knowledge"? Every employer should know there are many creative lawyers.
Injury
A RICO claim requires the plaintiff show injury. Lost wages, lost contracts, lost profits, unfair competitive advantage are all bases for a RICO injury claim. No company owner, executive, or manager worth his/her salt should doubt that creative lawyers may also find proving "injury" fertile ground.

A RICO Award Can Have Devastating Consequences
There are severe penalties for RICO violations. The court can also order the "dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise". In short, the losing company in a RICO case can lose the business, be forced to provide high levels of compensation to the plaintiff, and even be prohibited from engaging in future business activities.
Given the devastating consequences of a competitior RICO lawsuit an employer who does not carefully manage and review its I-9 employment eligibility verification (EEV) practices, procedures and policies engages in negligence, and its executives quite possibily breach their fiduciary duties to the company and any shareholders.

Further information about the immigration process for Employment Eligibility and Violations / Penalties can be discussed with professional insight and openness - with FREE initial Consultation by contacting Attorney Tracy to schedule an appointment.