Injunction of New No-Match Regulations Continued
Friday, October 5, 2007
Contributed by: Charles A. Mallard
For the second time, a U.S. federal court judge has delayed the implementation of new No-Match Regulations by the Department of Homeland Security. After a hearing on October 1, 2007, Judge Breyer of the U.S. District Court for Northern California, extended the original temporary restraining order he previously entered for an additional 10 days while he prepares a decision.
At issue are approximately 140,000 letters to employers from the Social Security Administration, informing employers that they have employees who names don't match their Social Security numbers. While such letters have been sent out for years, mostly finding their way into the trash or the ignore pile on the corner of employers' desks, these letters would be different. Under the new regulations, the failure to take action could result in findings of knowing or intentional violation of federal laws prohibiting the employment of illegal workers and stiff civil and criminal penalties.
The challenge, filed by the AFL-CIO, ACLU and other labor and business groups, claims that the rules could discriminate against immigrant employees and place an unfair burden on employers. Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, contends that the proposed program is the most the government could do to fight illegal immigration as long as Congress did not act (referring to the failed efforts of this past summer to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation). During the hearing, Judge Breyer reportedly raised a number of issues, including the language and legality of the "no-match" letters, possible discrimination in firing illegal Hispanic workers and not other illegal employees, staffing and cost burdens for companies to comply with regulations, and responsibilities and liabilities for employers.
This column is published for informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to create an attorney client relationship. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author's law firm or its individual partners.
