IER Interventions:  E-Verify

Fiscal year covers the period of October 1 thru September 30

Fiscal Year 2023

Chattanooga, TN

On November 15, 2022, IER learned that it facilitated a U.S. citizen getting back to work.  The caller received an E-Verify Final Nonconfirmation and called IER for help because she believed the result was in error.  The employer fired her, even though it had not provided the caller the instructions to resolve the E-Verify mismatch.  An IER staffer called the employer to work out the confusion.  The employer invited the worker back to work and she accepted.

Glen Clove, NY

On December 9, 2022, a worker called IER because his employer would not accept his 540-day Employment Authorization Document (EAD) extension because the caller’s receipt notice referred to a 180-day EAD extension. IER contacted the employer, who said the worker also couldn’t work because he had a pending E-Verify Mismatch. IER explained that employers should not take any adverse actions against employees who decide to take action on a Mismatch, based on the pending Mismatch, and the employer decided to let the worker start working. IER also provided the employer information about the 540-day EAD extensions.

Mississippi

On December 9, 2022, a U.S. citizen called IER because she could not start her job based on a pending E-Verify Mismatch. IER contacted the employer and explained that employers should not take any adverse actions against employees who decide to take action on a Mismatch, based on the pending Mismatch, and the employer decided to let the worker start working. On December 12, 2022, the worker started her job.

Bronx, NY

On February 14, 2023, a worker called IER’s hotline because his employer had suspended him without pay and was going to terminate him if he did not resolve his E-Verify mismatch in four days, even though the caller had taken all necessary steps to start the process of resolving the mismatch.  IER contacted the company to inform them that E-Verify guidance states that employers cannot take adverse actions based on a mismatch against employees who have decided to take action to resolve a mismatch, while the mismatch is pending.  On February 15, 2023, the company stated that the worker had been invited back to work.

Chesapeake, VA

On May 25, 2023, IER learned that it helped a U.S. citizen resume a job at a retailer. The worker had received an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (“mismatch”).  The caller shared that the employer told her she didn’t have to do anything about the mismatch, so she did not take action on it. The caller was eventually fired when the TNC became an FNC, which occurred before her start date. The worker called IER and IER called the company. The company determined it had not handled the mismatch properly and the caller was able to start working within a week.

Chicago, IL

On June 9, 2023, IER received a call from a worker who had received an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (mismatch) during the employment eligibility verification process. As a result of the mismatch, the employer dismissed the worker from her new employee training. IER intervened and informed the company that employers may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold or lower pay, or take any other adverse action against an employee because of a pending mismatch.  On June 12, 2023, the company explained to IER that it had made a mistake when it dismissed the worker, and that the worker would be permitted to resume training while her TNC is pending. The employer also committed to re-training the recruiting employee who had made the mistake to ensure similar errors do not occur in the future.

Springfield, MA

On June 14, 2023, IER saved the job of a worker at a food plant. The caller was a U.S. citizen from Puerto Rico, and he showed his Puerto Rican driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card for hire. He received an E-Verify mismatch and decided to take action. The worker followed E-Verify’s instructions for following up on his mismatch but his employer later fired him because the mismatch was still pending. The worker called IER and IER called the company and provided information on proper handling of mismatches. The company brought back the worker.

Lancaster, CA

On June 14, 2023, a U Visa holder called IER’s hotline because her employer terminated her based on an E-Verify mismatch. The employer did not provide the worker with the notices she needed to take action to resolve the mismatch. IER contacted the company to inform them that E-Verify guidance requires employers to provide workers with a Further Action Notice and Referral Date Confirmation for the worker to be able to resolve an E-Verify mismatch, and that employers are not allowed to fire workers based on an E-Verify mismatch while the mismatch is pending. On June 15, 2023, the company reinstated that the worker.

Athens, GA

On July 6, 2023, IER learned that it saved the jobs of two asylum applicants from Venezuela. The workers’ new employer was unable to create E-Verify cases for the workers because of technical problems in a private software program, and suspended them without pay.  IER called the employer to inform them that employers may not suspend workers without pay or fire them based on a technical inability to open an E-Verify case for a worker.  The company invited the workers back to work and paid them backpay for the time lost.

Culpepper, VA

On July 31, 2023, IER assisted a U.S. citizen who had lost his job as a result of an E-Verify mismatch.  The employer had run the worker through E-Verify with the incorrect Social Security number, so when he went to E-Verify to resolve the mismatch, he was instructed to return to his employer to ask them to run the case again.  When the employee did so, he got a second mismatch, and the employer and employee got frustrated with the process and the worker lost his job.  IER provided information about proper E-Verify procedures to both the employer and the worker.  With this additional information, the employer decided to provide the worker another chance to take action to resolve the second mismatch, which was successful, and the worker continued his employment with the company.

Phoenix, AZ

On September 1, 2023, IER received a call from an individual who recently became a lawful permanent resident and received an E-Verify mismatch.  After discussing the circumstances of the mismatch with the caller, IER called the employer and provided USCIS’s instructions for creating a new case when an employer needs to update Form I-9 information.  After the employer updated the caller’s Form I-9, E-Verify returned an employment authorized result.
 

Fiscal Year 2022

Quincy, MA

On October 11, 2021, IER learned that a worker was able to move forward in the hiring process after receiving an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  The worker’s employer had not allowed her to begin working while she resolved the TNC, even though the worker had taken all the necessary steps.  IER contacted the employer and informed them that if an employee decides to take action on a TNC, the pending TNC should not prevent the worker for beginning their job. The company decided to continue the caller’s onboarding. 

Randstad, FL

On October 12, 2021, a recently naturalized citizen called to complain that her employer was threatening to fire her if she did not resolve her E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) in four days, even though the caller had taken all necessary steps to start the process of resolving her TNC.  IER contacted corporate counsel to remind the employer that E-Verify guidance states that employers cannot take adverse actions based on a TNC against employees who have decided to take action on their TNC, while an employee’s TNC is pending.  On October 15, 2021, corporate counsel stated that the issue and TNC had been resolved, and the employer was reminding employees with E-Verify responsibilities not to take adverse actions against individuals based on their TNCs, while their TNCs are pending.

Cary, NC

On November 3, 2021, IER intervened and saved the job of a U.S. citizen.  The employer was an E-Verify user and entered incorrect information while creating a case for the worker, which resulted in a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  The worker contacted IER after her employer implied that she may not be able to work because of the TNC.  IER contacted the employer’s counsel who looked into the situation and resolved it by closing out following E-Verify’s instructions to close the prior case created with incorrect information and create a new case with the correct information.  The employee was able to continue working.

Cary, NC

On November 3, 2021, IER intervened and saved the job of a U.S. citizen.  The employer was an E-Verify user and entered incorrect information while creating a case for the worker, which resulted in a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  The worker contacted IER because based on her employer’s communications she believed she was not going to be able to continue working based on the TNC.  IER contacted the employer’s counsel who looked into the situation and resolved it by closing out the old E-Verify case and running a new case.  The employee was able to continue working.

Pemberton Township, NJ

On November 16, 2021, an IER staff member saved the job of a U.S. citizen who had received an E-Verify Social Security Administration Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  The employer provided the employee with the Further Action Notice (“FAN”) but told the employee that the TNC had to be resolved before the employee could continue to work.  The worker was hired to help build housing Afghans resettling in the U.S. and missed several days of work as a result of the employer’s misunderstanding about TNC rules.  The IER staff member contacted the employer and explained that employers cannot take any adverse action against any employee who receives a TNC and who decides to resolve the TNC.  The employer immediately reinstated the worker. Employer: Nicolson Construction & Sons (Alexandra Vince)

Richmond, VA

On November 30, 2021, IER helped a U.S. citizen who called the hotline because her employer delayed her start date after receiving an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC). IER provided guidance to the caller and the employer about the TNC process, including their respective rights and obligations. The employer decided to onboard the caller without further delay.

Orlando, FL

On December 8, 2021, IER received a call from a lawful permanent resident who was terminated a month earlier for failure to reverify his work authorization. The caller had provided a Permanent Resident Card (PRC) when he started working in 2020.  he PRC expired last month and the caller was terminated, even though employers should not request new documentation when a Permanent resident Card expires. IER contacted the employer and informed it that someone who presents a Permanent Resident Card is not subject to reverification. The employer decided to reinstate the caller on December 15, 2021. 

Edinburg, TX

On December 10, 2021, IER successfully intervened to allow a worker to continue working after his employer prevented him from doing so after receiving an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC). The worker chose to take action on the TNC and took steps to contact the Social Security Administration to resolve the issue. IER explained that a worker is allowed to work while contesting a TNC and the company agreed to allow the worker to work.

Miami, FL

On January 3, 2022, IER assisted a worker who had received a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  The worker had presented her automatically-extended Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and information about the 180-day extension for her EAD.  E-Verify returned a TNC.  The caller sent E-Verify information to assist with the resolution of her case and she also contacted IER.  IER followed up with E-Verify to get clarity about the status of the caller’s 180-day extension and E-Verify ultimately issued an Employment Authorized result. 

Colorado Springs, CO

On February 1, 2022, IER assisted a worker to start her job after her employer initially said she could not be hired or undergo the employment eligibility verification process because of a prior issue with E-Verify.  The worker was not sure what the issue could be, and IER contacted the employer to help get more information.  The employer followed up and then let IER know that the issue had been resolved, and the caller was able to start her job. 

New York, NY

On February 22, 2022, IER helped a worker resolve an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  The worker, who was work authorized because she had a U Visa, called IER and explained that she had received a TNC but did not know what she was supposed to do.  IER called E-Verify with the worker and then a few days later called E-Verify to confirm that it had received the worker’s information.  Following the second call to E-Verify, IER called the worker’s human resource representative and confirmed that the caller continued to work during the TNC process.

Washington, DC

On February 22, 2022, IER helped a worker through the E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation process.  The worker, a U.S. Citizen, received a Social Security Administration TNC and identified that the worker had incorrectly entered their Social Security number on the Form I-9.  IER followed up with E-Verify and the employer and the employer was able to close out the case and create a new one, per E-Verify’s instructions. 

Montgomery, AL

On March 3, 2022, IER learned that it saved the job of a worker whose employer terminated her based on a pending E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) while the worker was taking steps to resolve the case.  The employer terminated the worker instead of allowing the worker to resolve the TNC with the Social Security Administration.  IER reached out to the employer and the employer allowed the worker to return to work and provided backpay for the days she unnecessarily missed.

Livingston, CA

On March 22, 2022, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident. The employer was an E-Verify user and entered incorrect information while creating a case for the worker, which resulted in a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  The employer placed the worker on suspension until the issue was resolved.  The worker contacted IER after E-Verify referred the worker to the office.  IER contacted the employer and explained proper E-Verify procedure and worker protections stemming from a from a decision to take action against a TNC.  The employee returned to work for his shift that night and the employer offered back pay. 

Georgia

On April 27, 2022, IER received a hotline call from a worker whose employer did not provide her with a copy of the Further Action Notice from E-Verify. Rather, the employer requested that the worker provide additional documents for the Form I-9, and that she complete the Form I-9 again with those additional documents. IER contacted the employer and provided guidance about the process for handling Tentative Nonconfirmations and reminded the employer that all employees may provide their choice of documents and that requesting more or different documents based on a worker’s citizenship status may be unlawful. The worker was able to begin work. 

Clinton, SC

On April 28, 2022, IER learned that a worker had been reinstated in her position at a staffing company after IER’s intervention.  The worker contacted IER because she received a Tentative Nonconfirmation. The worker confirmed that all of the information in the TNC was correct and IER informed the worker that she could challenge the TNC – her last day to do so under E-Verify guidance. The worker contacted the employer to notify them that she would be challenging the TNC and IER contacted the employer to notify them that E-Verify guidance indicated that an employer should not suspend the employer based on the TNC alone. The employer decided to contact the worker the same day to have her begin work. 

Burlington, NC

On May 31, 2022, IER assisted a worker whose employer was requesting additional documentation due to receiving an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (“TNC”). The worker contacted IER to get information about TNCs and also because the worker believed his employer was requesting more documents than required for the Form I-9. IER spoke to the employer to explain the prohibition on requesting more or different documents than required by Form I-9 rules and the process for addressing a TNC. IER spoke to the worker to explain the action steps on the Further Action Notice. The worker was able to resolve the TNC and remain at work.

Wilmington, DE

On June 21, 2022, IER completed a successful intervention and helped a worker at a staffing agency.  The worker had been recommended for a staffing placement with one of the agency’s clients, but her name had been entered incorrectly in the Form I-9, triggering an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  The worker was told that she could not be placed with the client and start work until the TNC had been cleared.  The worker called IER’s hotline for information and assistance.  IER contacted the employer with information about proper TNC procedures.  The employer determined that the worker’s TNC did not require it to delay her start date, and the worker was able to begin work.

Denver, CO

On June 30, 2022, a worker called IER’s worker hotline because her employer suspended her while waiting for the E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNCs) to be resolved. IER called the employer and explained E-Verify’s rules for TNCs, including the employer’s obligation not to take adverse action against employees who take action to resolve a TNC, based on the TNC. The employer decided to reinstate the caller and pay her approximately $540 in back pay for the days of work she missed.

Fort Pierce, FL

On September 8, 2022, IER learned that it had successfully assisted an asylum applicant return to work while she was taking action to resolve an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (Mismatch). The caller explained she had been told that there was nothing the employer could do and then the employer terminated her employment. The IER staffer contacted the employer and was able provide information about E-Verify and the Mismatch process. The employer subsequently offered the caller reinstatement to her position.

Lufkin, TX

On September 30, 2022, a worker called because her employer terminated her due to an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (Mismatch) she had decided to take action on, even though the worker’s Mismatch was still pending.  IER contacted the employer to provide information about E-Verify’s prohibition against taking adverse action against employees while their Mismatch is still pending.  On October 11, 2022, the employer decided to call the worker back to work.
 

Fiscal Year 2021

San Diego, CA

On October 29, 2020, IER assisted a work-authorized individual who had received an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) due to an error in entering in her Social Security number.  The company initially refused to correct the error and re-run her through E-Verify following E-Verify’s instructions.  IER contacted the employer and pointed it to E-Verify instructions for closing a case that was created with incorrect information and the employer decided to follow those instructions.  The worker was allowed to continue working.  

Honolulu, HI

On November 23, 2020, IER took a call from an asylee who was having an issue being considered for jobs because while the caller had work authorization and an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), the caller had not yet received their Social Security number (SSN).  The recruiter with whom the caller was in contact did not believe that employers using E-Verify would allow the caller to work, because E-Verify cases require an employer to enter the worker’s SSN.  IER contacted the recruiter and explained that E-Verify instructs employers to delay creating the E-Verify case until a worker has received an SSN and that employees continue to work during this time if the worker has completed the Form I-9. The recruiter decided to set up work interviews for the caller.

St. Louis, MO

On December 2, 2020, IER received a hotline call from a worker who had received an SSA-TNC.  IER called E-Verify with the worker to identify what had caused the TNC and assisted the worker in understanding what documents/and or information the worker could provide to E-Verify.  IER then spoke with the employer regarding how to submit the worker’s documentation to E-Verify. The worker did not experience any additional problems.

Brookly, NY

On December 8, 2020, a worker called IER’s hotline because he had received an E-Verify TNC.  The worker is a U.S. citizen and challenged the TNC, but his employer has not permitted him to start working, which is against E-Verify guidelines.  IER contacted the employer to notify it that E-Verify rules prohibit employers from taking adverse action against workers who take action against a TNC.  The employer permitted the worker to start working.

Richmond, VA

On December 14, 2020, IER saved the job of an asylee who was initially unable to be hired without her SSN at a fast food restaurant because the employer needed the SSN for a background check and to run an E-Verify case. The worker’s service provider called IER and IER called the company. The company said that its general manager was incorrect in stating that a worker could not be hired without an SSN and that the company regularly onboards workers who lack SSNs while fulfilling its onboarding processes. The employer also was aware that E-Verify has a specific process already in place for employers who hire workers without SSNs, and that E-Verify rules require the employer to wait until the worker receives the SSN to run the E-Verify case. The employer educated its management on the correct policies and paid the worker $660 for the two weeks of part time work that she missed. 

Milan, IL

On December 18, 2020, IER helped several refugees get hired at a manufacturing plant. The company told a refugee service provider that it was unable to hire workers who were awaiting Social Security numbers (SSNs) because the company was an E-Verify user and also needed to conduct a background check. The service provider contacted IER and IER contacted the company.  IER provided information on E-Verify rules regarding hiring workers who have not yet received an SSN.  The company determined that it did not require SSNs for the onboarding process and decided going forward not to require SSNs for new employees.

Redmond, OR

On January 8, 2021, IER helped resolve an E-Verify issue for an alien authorized to work from Micronesia.  The caller began a job with a retailer and received an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC). The worker called IER and explained her TNC and that there was an error with her Form I-9, but the company was not willing to correct the error and re-run the case.  IER called the company and discussed proper E-Verify procedures, and the company decided to follow E-Verify procedures and USCIS’s instructions for correcting Form I-9 errors.  HR ran the E-Verify case with the corrected information and she received an Employment Authorized result. 

Florida

On January 21, 2021, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an asylum applicant to keep his job.  The employer is an E-Verify user and entered incorrect information for the worker, resulting in a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC). The worker contacted IER after his employer told him that he would not be able to work because of the TNC.  IER contacted the employer and informed them of E-Verify rules and general prohibition against discrimination in the E-Verify process. IER also provided the employer with E-Verify’s temporary policy related to COVID-19 on timeframes for taking action to resolve TNCs.  The employer decided not to take any action against the employee based on the TNC and the employee continued to work.

Islandia, NY

On January 26, 2021, an IER staff member intervened and saved the job of a U.S. citizen worker.  When the worker began working in December 2020, she received an SSA TNC.  She informed the employer that she wanted to resolve the TNC and was given the FAN.  She called E-Verify instead of SSA, and the E-Verify representative informed her that the employer needed to correct the SS number it entered in the system because one number was incorrect. The worker informed the employer who allowed her to correct her Form I-9, but the employer did not take any corrective action in the E-Verify system, so the TNC became an FNC. IER contacted the employer’s legal counsel and educated legal counsel on proper E-Verify procedures for SSA TNC’s during Covid-19 and also provided counsel with the E-Verify’s technical help number.  As a result of IER’s intervention, the employer agreed to reinstate the worker with backpay in the amount of $444.80.

Kissimmee, FL

On January 28, 2021, IER assisted a U.S. citizen who was terminated after receiving an E-Verify Final Non-Confirmation. The employer notified the worker of the Tentative Non-Confirmation (TNC) and provided him with a Further Action Notice and Referral Date Confirmation. However, the worker was a Spanish-speaker and the employer gave him the E-Verify documents in English. Consequently, he did not understand the instructions.  IER contacted the employer who confirmed its mistake, voluntarily reinstated the worker, closed the prior E-Verify case, created a new E-Verify case for him, followed the correct TNC procedure, and paid him $525 (gross) in lost wages.

Greenville, NC

On January 28, 2021, IER received a hotline call from a worker who had received a SSATNC and was not permitted to begin working at a nursing staffing company based in New York, even though the caller chose to take action with the TNC. E-Verify rules prohibit employers from preventing workers from working in this situation, and SSA TNCs are currently pending due to SSA office closures.  IER contacted the recruiter at the staffing company and provided guidance about TNCs and current rules governing SSA-TNCS due to COVID.  The worker began working the next day.

Tampa, FL

On February 2, 2021, IER received a hotline call from a worker who had received a SSA-TNC and whose employer incorrectly told her she had to resolve the TNC within five days.   IER contacted the recruiter at the staffing company and provided guidance about TNCs and current rules governing SSA-TNCS due to COVID.  Following the intervention, the employer understood that E-Verify rules do not permit employers from taking adverse action against workers due to a TNC.

Memphis, TN

On February 2, 2021, IER received a hotline call from a worker who had received a SSA-TNC and whose employer was uncertain about how to proceed.   IER contacted the recruiter at the employer at the location and provided guidance about TNCs and current rules governing SSA-TNCS due to COVID.  The worker had been allowed to begin working. 

Searcy, AR

On February 16, 2021, a worker called the hotline, complaining that his employer terminated him due to a Final Non-confirmation even though he is a U.S. Citizen.  The worker asked IER to contact the ER to understand why this occurred, and learned that a Final Non-confirmation had issued in error. Following IER’s call, the employer offered another position to the worker.

Fort Myers, FL

On April 7, 2021, an IER staff member saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen who had received a Social Security Tentative Non-Confirmation (“SSA”) (“TNC”).  The employer provided the citizen employee with the Further Action Notice (“FAN”), and explained to the employee that the TNC must be resolved prior to him beginning work.  The employer took the employee off the work schedule and informed him that it would try and hold his position for about one month until he was able to resolve the TNC.  The IER staff member contacted the employer and provided information about the E-Verify rules that no adverse action, such as delayed start date or termination be taken against any employee because of a TNC, that the employee has eight federal business days to contact the appropriate agency, and that resolving the TNC may take longer.  Upon receiving this information, the employer immediately put the employee back on the work schedule.

Phoenix, AZ

On April 7, 2021, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a U.S. citizen whose employer, a large retail chain, refused to follow E-Verify’s instructions for running her through the system.  Specifically, the worker received a TNC due to inconsistent name spellings in different documents.  After E-Verify instructed the employer to close her case and run her using the name on the worker’s Social Security Card, the employer refused to do it.  After IER called and asked an HR representative about the situation, the retailer agreed to run the worker again with the correct name, which resulted in an employment authorized result. 

Houston, TX

On April 12, 2021, IER intervened to save the job of a naturalized U.S. Citizen who was told by a temp. agency that she could not be considered for future jobs based on a pending E-Verify tentative non-confirmation (TNC) while the worker was taking steps to resolve the case.  The employer terminated the worker instead of following E-Verify rules that prevent employers from taking adverse action against employees who are contesting TNCs. IER reached out to the temp. agency and provided them with information from E-Verify’s website, and then the temp. agency decided to place the worker back into consideration for jobs. The next morning, she received a call from the temp. agency that she had a job interview for that afternoon.

McAllen, TX

On May 27, 2021, IER assisted a U.S. citizen who was not permitted to start working after receiving an E-Verify Tentative Non-Confirmation (TNC). While the Employer notified the worker of the TNC and provided him with a Further Action Notice and Referral Date Confirmation, he was instructed to come back once the TNC was resolved.  IER contacted the Employer’s corporate human resources director, who after looking into the matter, voluntarily reinstated the worker and paid him $680 (gross) for five days of lost wages. The Employer also indicated that the staff in its office where this issue arose would be required to retake an E-Verify training module.

Old Saybrook, CT

On June 11, 2021, IER helped a TPS beneficiary from Haiti get a state ID. The worker applied for an ID and the DMV ran him through the DHS SAVE database to check if he was lawfully present. The worker used the online SAVE case check website to see if the DMV had received the response from SAVE. Despite two weeks having passed since SAVE returned the information to the DMV, the DMV still had not contacted him and he was unable to get an update from the DMV. The worker called IER and IER called the DMV. The DMV realized its error and asked the worker to return to the office to get his state ID.

Homewood, IL

On June 21, 2021, IER assisted a U.S. Citizen who had received an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  The company initially refused to allow the worker to continue working while he resolved the TNC.  IER contacted the employer and pointed it to E-Verify instructions that state that a worker should continue working while resolving a TNC.  The worker was allowed to continue working. 

Pottsville, PA

On June 21, 2021, IER assisted a U.S. Citizen who had received an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) because the company had entered his social security number correctly.  The company initially refused to correct the error and re-run her through E-Verify following E-Verify’s instructions.  IER contacted the employer and pointed it to E-Verify instructions for closing a case that was created with incorrect information and the employer decided to follow those instructions.  The worker was allowed to continue working.

Louisville, KY

On July 8, 2021, IER intervened to save the job of a worker whose employer had suspended him without pay after he received an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  IER explained to the employer that a worker has the right to contest a TNC and that employers should not take adverse action against employees contesting their TNCs based on the TNC.  The employer accepted this explanation and decided to reinstate the worker. 

Greenly, CO

On July 28, 2021, IER successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a worker from the Federated States of Micronesia, a country whose citizens are permanently authorized to work in the United States under an international treaty. The employer improperly placed the worker on involuntary leave without pay after receiving a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) in E-Verify, and told the worker he could not return until the E-Verify issue had been resolved. IER contacted the employer and provided information about proper TNC procedures, and the employer immediately reinstated the worker and voluntarily paid him back pay ($1920) for the month of work that he missed.

Phoenix, AZ

On August 3, 2021, IER saved the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker got a job at a staffing company. He received an SSA TNC in E-Verify, and the employer said that it would not send him to the client company until he resolved the TNC. The worker called IER, and then called the staffing company recruiter with IER on the phone. IER explained to the recruiter proper E-Verify procedures, including that employers cannot terminate workers, delay their start dates, or take negative actions against workers due to E-Verify TNCs. IER also explained that generally, most SSA TNCs are still pending due to Covid-19 closures of SSA offices. The recruiter apologized and told the worker that he could start his assignment as planned.

Pennsylvania

On August 13, 2021, a U.S. citizen called IER because her employer was threatening to terminate her if she did not resolve her E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) within 10 days, even though there is no time limit for a worker to resolve a TNC.  IER contacted the employer to remind it that employers should not take adverse actions against employees, such as suspending or terminating them, while they are attempting to resolve a TNC and their case status is pending in E-Verify.  IER also reminded the employer of the general delays in processing TNCs caused by the pandemic.  The employer decided to allow the employee to continue to work.

Unknown

On August 16, 2021, IER assisted a work-authorized individual who presented sufficient documentation for the form I-9 but was turned away by their employer. The employer ran the worker through E-Verify and, when E-Verify issued a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC), the employer suspended the worker, mistakenly believing that the documentation the worker had presented was insufficient for the Form I-9. IER provided the employer with information about TNCs and the type of documentation the worker had presented. The employer decided to immediately reinstate the worker and provided back pay for the days the worker missed. 

 

Fiscal Year 2020

Dallas, TX

On October 21, 2019, a Lawful Permanent Resident reported that her employer had told her there were issues with her green card so it could not hire her.  Upon further inquiry, IER learned that the worker had received an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  IER contacted the employer to provide information about a worker’s rights to remain employed while challenging a TNC and provided information to the worker to help her resolve her TNC with the Department of Homeland Security.  The worker returned to her job and resolved the TNC to obtain an “Employment Authorized” result. 

California

On November 8, 2019, IER assisted a naturalized U.S. citizen resolve an E-Verify Final Nonconfirmation (FNC).  The caller’s employer created an E-Verify case and the worker received a Tentative Nonconfirmation.  She visited the local Social Security Administration office to resolve the mismatch in her records but her employer received an FNC.  The employer called IER for assistance because it believed it needed to terminate the worker under E-Verify rules, even though it also believed the worker was authorized to work.  IER explained that employers can contact E-Verify if they believe an FNC issued in error.  IER also offered to speak with the worker.  The worker called IER and they called E-Verify for assistance. E-Verify resolved the case and reached out to the employer to notify it that the worker’s employment authorization was verified.  The worker then continued in employment.  

Phoenix, AZ

On February 25, 2020, IER assisted a U.S. citizen in Phoenix, AZ, who called IER because his employer terminated him after receiving an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC), even though the worker had contested the TNC and contacted the Department of Homeland Security. IER contacted the employer and provided information on proper TNC procedures. The employer offered to hire back the worker and provide back pay for the work he had missed. 

New York, NY

On February 26, 2020, IER saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen who received an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC). The worker was supposed to start working at a hospital on but the hospital said her start date would be delayed while the TNC was still pending. The worker contacted E-Verify and E-Verify referred the caller to IER for concerns related to her delay in working based on the TNC.  IER called the hospital and explained proper E-Verify procedures. The hospital contacted the worker and she began work on her start date, as planned.

Romeoville, IL

On March 3, 2020, IER assisted a U.S. citizen who had been terminated from her employment during the E-Verify process. The worker had initially received a Tentative Nonconfirmation, which resulted in a Final Nonconfirmation because she was not aware of the proper procedure to take to resolve the issue. IER contacted the employer and worked with both the employer and the worker to ensure that all parties understood the proper E-Verify and TNC notification procedures. The employer offered the employee the opportunity to return to her job and to be run through E-Verify again.

Tulsa, OK

On March 17, 2020, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who received an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC). The employer ran the LPR through E-Verify and received a TNC and believed the worker had to resolve the E-Verify TNC before she could start work. The worker called IER and IER called the employer. IER explained proper procedures for TNCs, including that employers should not use the receipt of a TNC to take any action against workers who want to take action to resolve the TNC, unless and until E-Verify issues a Final Nonconfirmation. The employer was grateful to learn of IER as a resource and the caller continued working.

Sparrows Point, MD

On April 13, 2020, IER assisted a worker who received an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC).  The caller’s employer indicated it would not allow the employee to continue working.  IER reached out to the company and discussed proper E-Verify TNC procedures.  The caller was able to continue working and the case was resolved. 

Lexington, KY

On April 27, 2020, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who contacted IER’s hotline because he believed that he was terminated due to receiving an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  IER called the company’s counsel to assist in getting more information and discovered that the TNC had become a Final Nonconfirmation on April 23.  IER assisted the worker in identifying instructions for addressing his E-Verify case and the company reinstated him.

Hubbs, NM

On April 29, 2020, an IER staff member saved the job of a worker who was told she could not continue working after receiving an E-Verify Social Security Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  The IER staff member called the employer and explained that an employer should not, based on a TNC, take any adverse action against a worker who has decided to take action on the TNC, unless and until E-Verify issues a Final Nonconfirmation (FNC).  IER also shared current E-Verify guidance on the status of SSA TNCs while SSA field offices are closed due to COVID-19.  The employer decided to allow the worker to continue working and shared the guidance with other company employees responsible for onboarding.

Louisville, KY

On June 9, 2020, IER intervened to save the job of a law permanent resident who received an E-Verify Social Security Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC). The employer provided the worker with the appropriate Further Action Notice (FAN) and informed the worker that she had to have the TNC resolved within eight business days otherwise she would be terminated.  The worker contacted IER to get more information on the TNC process and IER explained the different steps.  The IER staffer also contacted the employer and informed them that workers have eight government working days to initiate the contact with SSA but are not required to resolve the case in that timeframe, and also informed them of the SSA local office closures and provided guidance to the employer.  As a result, the employer understood that the worker can remain on the job while she is attempting to resolve the TNC, and that this process will take longer since SSA local offices are currently closed.  The guidance IER provided to the employer kept the worker employed. 

St. Charles, MO

On June 16, 2020, IER assisted a U.S. citizen whose employer was having an issue with the worker’s E-Verify case.  The worker received an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation and the employer was unsure of the appropriate next steps.  IER contacted the employer and provided information on how to handle the issue arising the in case, and the case was resolved.

Fontana, CA

On June 25, 2020, IER saved the job of an Alien Authorized to Work who received an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC). An employer called IER because its employee received a TNC.  The employer thought that because the worker was not a U.S. citizen, the TNC meant that the worker was undocumented.  The employer was about to fire the worker but called IER first to see if IER could confirm whether the worker had employment authorization. IER explained that employers should go through the proper TNC procedure with all individuals, not just U.S. citizens, and that DHS rules do not allow employers to fire workers just because they received a TNC. IER also explained that DHS requires employers to notify workers of the TNC so the workers can choose to take action or not. The employer had not notified the worker of the TNC and was pleased that the worker could continue to work during the TNC process. The employer also appreciated IER’s referrals to DHS educational material such as the Handbook for Employers (M-274) and the E-Verify User Manual (M-775).

Austin, TX

On July 16, 2020, IER learned that an employer gave a worker back pay for incorrectly delaying her start date due to an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC). The employer assumed that because the worker was not a U.S. citizen, she was not eligible to work when she got the TNC. By the time the worker called the IER hotline, the TNC issue had already resolved but she wanted the employer to know that it should not take adverse action against a worker if a worker contests a TNC, and the TNC process is ongoing. IER called the employer to educate it on proper E-Verify rules, including that employers should not suspend or otherwise delay workers from employment just due to a TNC. IER also gave the employer links to DHS materials, such as the E-Verify Manual (M-775). The employer regretted jumping to conclusions about the worker’s status and decided to pay her $720 for the week she missed of work. 

Knoxville, TN

On July 27, 2020, IER received a hotline call from a U.S. citizen whose employer, a fast food restaurant, terminated the caller based on the receipt of an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation.  Additionally, the company did not pay the worker for the three days he had worked.  IER contacted the restaurant’s owner and explained that employers may not terminate workers simply for receiving a tentative nonconfirmation and are not allowed to use the tentative nonconfirmation to take adverse action against worker who decides to work to resolve the tentative confirmation.  The restaurant paid that worker $820 for the days lost and for the three days he had worked. 

Doral, FL

On September 3, 2020, IER learned that its intervention had resolved an E-Verify problem for a warehouse worker who had received a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  The employer had informed the worker about the TNC, but due to a technical glitch with the employer’s software, the worker had been unable to access any of the TNC paperwork in order to take action to resolve it.  The worker was also unable to obtain assistance from the company’s employee help line. After the worker called IER’s hotline, IER contacted the employer and the employer worked with its software provider to obtain the correct paperwork.  The worker’s E-Verify case was ultimately resolved with an Employment Authorized result and the worker was able to continue working. 

Beaumont, TX

On September 17, 2020, IER assisted a worker who had received an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (“TNC”).  The worker contacted IER and said that his employer refused to allow him to start work until the TNC was resolved.  IER contacted the employer and pointed it to E-Verify guidance which states that an employer should not take any adverse action against an employee who timely acts to resolve a TNC, based on the TNC.  The employer decided to allow the worker to start work.

Jacksonville, FL

On September 21, 2020, a U.S. citizen called IER because she received an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) and said that her employer told the caller she needed to get the TNC resolved or she would be terminated and that she was suspended for three weeks until the issue was resolved.  IER contacted the employer and pointed the company to E-Verify’s procedures for handling TNCs, including allowing an employee to continue working while working to resolve a TNC, and the employer decided to return the caller to work immediately.

 

Fiscal Year 2019

Fontana, CA

On October 3, 2018, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident in Fontana, California.  The worker had an earlier version of the Permanent Resident Card that contains no expiration date and remains valid.  The employer uses E-Verify and believed, based on a call with E-Verify, that it could not accept the worker’s document.  The employer told the worker that he needed to present a new document for E-Verify purposes, and terminated his employment until he could present the new document.  IER contacted the employer and E-Verify, and confirmed for the employer that the document was valid for employment eligibility verification and could be used to create an E-Verify case.  The employer decided to rehire the worker without additional documentation.

Carteret, NJ

On December 11, 2018, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident whose employer terminated him based on a pending E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC) while the worker was taking steps to resolve the case.  E-Verify issued a TNC after the employer created the case with information that did not match the worker’s Form I-9 documentation.  The employer terminated the worker instead of following the Social Security Administration’s instructions to create a new case with accurate information.  IER reached out to the employer and the employer created a new E-Verify case, which resulted in an employment authorized result.  The worker was able to begin working again and will receive $858 in back pay. 

Rochelle Pak, NJ

On February 6, 2019, IER saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who had been hired at a factory.  The employer called IER’s hotline and explained that the worker showed his unrestricted Social Security card and foreign passport for hire. The employer thought that the worker needed to show his foreign passport because it wrongly believed that E-Verify required a List A document from non-U.S. citizens.  The employer also was unable to input the foreign passport into E-Verify without other information and feared that it needed to terminate the worker because it was unable to run the E-Verify case.  Before taking any action, the employer called IER for assistance to make sure that it was not misunderstanding proper procedures. IER explained to the employer that the foreign passport alone was not a List A document but after speaking with the worker, learned that the worker had a valid state ID that he wanted to present in addition to his Social Security card. IER then explained to the employer that a state ID and Social Security card (List B and List C documents, respectively) are sufficient for both the Form I-9 and E-Verify processes, regardless of whether a worker is a U.S. citizen.  The employer was grateful that it was able to keep the worker and that it learned of IER’s free resources for companies.

Lenoir City, TN

On March 1, 2019, IER intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident.  The employer was an E-Verify user and entered incorrect information while creating a case for the worker, which resulted in tentative nonconfirmation (TNC).  The worker contacted IER after her employer told her that she would not be able to work because of the TNC.  IER contacted the employer’s counsel who looked into the situation and resolved it.  The employee returned to work immediately and received $435 in back pay for missed work.

Chicago, IL

On March 5, 2019, IER assisted a worker move forward in the loan application process and helped the worker’s employer not violate E-Verify program rules. The employer called IER for assistance after the worker’s bank contacted the employer to request the worker’s E-Verify case result as part of the worker’s loan application. The employer does not use E-Verify and had questions regarding running a current employee through the system.  IER explained E-Verify rules for creating cases to the employer, including that generally employers cannot run current employees through E-Verify and E-Verify requires employers to follow rules for maintaining the confidentiality of case information.  IER also called the worker’s attorney and discussed the documentation that workers may have that reflects their employment authorization outside the Form I-9 context.  The attorney asked IER to call the bank to explain the issue and IER spoke to the bank’s loan manager.  The bank was grateful for the information and said it would no longer require an E-Verify case result to proceed with the loan application process.

Moultrie, GA

On March 19, 2019, IER saved the job of a U.S. citizen whose employer did not permit him to work without a Social Security card (SSC). The worker showed his state ID and U.S. birth certificate for Section 2. His employer created a case in E-Verify and the worker received a TNC due to an error in his Social Security number in Section 1.  The employer knew the worker could work during the TNC but believed in error that the worker also needed to present a SSC to correct the information. The worker called IER, and IER called the company to explain that Form I-9 rules allow the worker to correct Section 1 of the Form I-9 without giving any additional documentation and that an employer who has examined documentation for the Form I-9 that relates to the worker and looks reasonably genuine should not request additional documentation. The employer was grateful that the worker could continue to work without needing to wait for a new SSC.

Des Moines, IA

On March 21, 2019, IER saved the job of a worker who received an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC).  The worker’s employer told her that she had eight days to fix the TNC and that she could not work after the eighth day, which is contrary to E-Verify rules for handling a TNC. The worker called IER, and IER called the employer to explain that a worker has eight days to contact the relevant federal agency to start the process of resolving a TNC, but TNCs can take longer than that time to resolve and E-Verify rules do not allow employers to fire workers purely because it received a TNC.  The employer was happy to learn that it did not need to fire the worker and stated it would call IER’s free hotline for employers if it had questions in the future.

Charlotte, NC

On March 23, 2019, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a U.S. citizen to return to work. The worker had received an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC), prompting her employer to terminate her. IER intervened and explained to the employer that a TNC is not proof that a worker is not eligible to work and E-Verify rules do not allow an employer to fire a worker solely because the worker received a TNC. The employer then decided to allow the worker to return.

Alexandria, VA

On April 11, 2019, IER saved the job of an LPR. The LPR got a job at a cleaning company in March and presented a State ID and her expired conditional PRC with an extension, which is a List C document. The employer entered incorrect information into E-Verify and the worker received a TNC. The worker incorrectly believed that because she was work-authorized, she did not need to follow the TNC process. The worker got an FNC and the employer fired her. The employer did not realize that the worker had worked because she did not complete the payroll documentation, and did not pay her after her termination.  The worker contacted IER and IER reached out to the employer.  The employer identified an inputting error with the worker’s E-Verify case and also realized that it neglected to pay her for work already performed.  The employer immediately paid the worker $500 for the unpaid wages. It also decided to rehire the worker and following E-Verify’s instructions created a new case with the correct information.

Wisconsin

On April 17, 2019, IER assisted a worker return to work after receiving a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) in E-Verify. The employer called IER’s hotline requesting guidance on TNC procedures. The employer mistakenly believed the worker could not begin working while resolving the TNC so IER explained that E-Verify prohibits an employer from taking any adverse action against a worker who decides to take action on a TNC, based solely on the TNC. The employer accepted the explanation and allowed the worker to begin working.

Lake Charles, LA

On April 25, 2019, an IER staff member completed a successful hotline intervention on behalf of a Lawful Permanent Resident (“LPR”) who had received a Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Tentative Nonconfirmation (“TNC”) from E-Verify.  Based on discussions with his employer about the TNC, the LPR believed that his employer was going to terminate him based on the TNC, despite the LPR contacting DHS in a timely manner.  IER called the employer and explained the TNC process, including that a worker cannot be fired based on a TNC while attempting to remedy the TNC.  The employer apologized for any miscommunication that occurred and ensured that the individual would continue working while the TNC was pending.

Cedar Rapids, IA

On April 30, 2019, IER intervened to save the job of an Alien Authorized to Work whose employer told him that a pending E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) meant that she did not have legal status to work in the United States.  IER helped the worker take steps to resolve the TNC and educated the employer that an employer may not, based on a TNC, terminate or take other action against worker who decides to contest the TNC.

Atlanta, GA

On May 6, 2019, IER intervened to save the job of a U.S. citizen.  The employer, a staffing agency, received an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) for the worker and the worker decided to take action to resolve the TNC result.  The staffing agency would not place the worker on the assignment he was scheduled to start the next day until he resolved the TNC, even though E-Verify prohibits employers from taking any action against a worker who decides to resolve a TNC, based on the TNC.  The worker called E-Verify which in turn referred the worker to IER.  IER called the staffing agency and explained an employer cannot—based on the TNC—take any adverse action against a work who chooses to take action in regards to a TNC.  The employer accepted the explanation, requested additional resources related to proper E-Verify procedures, and put the worker back to work.

Houston, TX

On May 16, 2019, IER saved the job of a U.S. citizen who had not been permitted to work during an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation even though the employer had indicated he wished to resolve the case.  The worker timely contacted the Social Security Administration and was advised that the employer should run a new E-Verify case with the correct information, but the employer did not do so and the worker remained suspended from his job.  After the worker called IER’s hotline, IER contacted the employer and provided information about proper TNC procedures.  The employer decided to allow the worker to return to work, and paid him back pay for nearly four weeks of missed work.  

Albany, NY

On May 23, 2019, IER helped a U.S. citizen return to work at a processing plant after her employer suspending her for receiving an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC). The worker presented a driver’s license and U.S. birth certificate for the Form I-9, and received a Department of Homeland Security TNC. The employer called IER for assistance because it did not understand why the native-born US citizen would receive a DHS TNC.  IER provided the employer E-Verify materials, including information about verification of driver’s license information in E-Verify.  Also during the call, the employer mentioned that it was suspending the worker until she resolved the TNC.  IER explained that under E-Verify rules, employers are not allowed to suspend, delay hire, or take any negative actions against workers who decide to resolve a TNC, due to a TNC, unless and until E-Verify issues a final nonconfirmation.  The employer was grateful for the information and returned the worker to her job while she resolved her TNC.

New Jersey

On June 7, 2019, IER successfully intervened on behalf of a worker who was not allowed to work while resolving an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC). IER explained that workers should be allowed to work while in the process of resolving a TNC. The employer accepted this explanation and allowed the worker to return.

Collierville, TN

On June 7, 2019, IER completed a successful telephone intervention allowing a worker to return to work. The worker contacted IER because he received a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) and said that his employer asked him to resign due to his failure to clear the program, even though the worker had informed the employer that the employer entered his information incorrectly into E-Verify.  IER contacted the employer and explained E-Verify’s instructions for employers that identify an error inputting employee information in E-Verify, which includes creating a new case with correct information. The employer decided to allow the worker to return to work.

Raleigh, NC

On June 12, 2019, IER received a call from a worker who said that his employer, a staffing agency, instructed him to stop working immediately earlier that day due to an issue related to E-Verify. Based on information IER obtained from the worker and his supervisor, it appeared likely that the issue was a tentative nonconfirmation. Employers must follow a certain process when a TNC in E-Verify occurs, including promptly providing notice to the employee of what further action is necessary and the time frame in which such action must be completed. Employers are not allowed to treat workers who receive, and decide to contest, a TNC adversely due to the TNC. IER called the employer’s corporate office to obtain more information and offer assistance in resolving the issue informally. The employer promptly told the worker that he could return to work the next day.

Shakopee, MN

On July 15, 2019, an IER staff member successfully completed a telephone intervention saving the job of a naturalized citizen with a job placement agency.  The worker received an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC) from the Department of Homeland Security.  The worker stated that her employer requested a new Permanent Resident Card in response, and told the worker she would not be able to begin working at her placement company until she produced the card, even though the worker had a valid driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card, which are sufficient for the Form I-9 (and E-Verify).  An IER staffer contacted the placement agency and helped resolve some apparent miscommunication between the placement agency and the worker.  The IER staffer also assisted the worker in contacting E-Verify to rectify the issue that caused the TNC.  The staffing company decided to allow the worker to begin work on time at the placement company.

Fall Rivers, MA

On September 6, 2019, an IER attorney received a call from a lawful permanent resident whose employer was having trouble creating an E-Verify case using the caller’s information.  The caller’s USCIS/alien registration number has eight digits.  The employer stated that the caller needed a nine-digit number to begin working.  The IER attorney researched the issue and provided the employer guidance from USCIS on how to create an E-Verify case for a worker with an eight-digit number.  The employer stated that that it was able to verify the caller’s work authorization.  The caller will begin working immediately.

Louisville, KY

On September 15, 2019, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident who was terminated from his job after an E-Verify issue. The worker had contacted the Department of Homeland Security after receiving a tentative nonconfirmation and E-Verify resolved the case, but his employer did not recognize that the case had been resolved and terminated him. IER contacted the employer to explain the situation and provide guidance on proper E-Verify procedures. The employer invited the worker to return to his job, and paid him $1,800 in back pay for the hours he missed while the situation was pending.

Athens, TX

On September 20, 2019, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident who was terminated from her job after an E-Verify issue. The worker had resolved her tentative nonconfirmation (TNC), but the employer did not check the case to get the updated status, and instead opened a new case that resulted in a new TNC. This happened several times, and the employer decided not to let the caller continue to work based on the multiple TNCs. IER contacted E-Verify to confirm that the worker had received an Employment Authorized result, and provided guidance to the employer on the proper steps for resolving a TNC. The employer understood and decided to re-hire the worker.

 

Fiscal Year 2018

Atlantic City, NJ

On October 16, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR).  The LPR presented a valid Permanent Resident Card upon hire.  The employer, an E-Verify user, received a DHS TNC.  The worker contested the TNC but the employer told the worker that she could not continue to work until she revolved the TNC.  The worker called DHS, in turn DHS referred the worker to IER.  IER called the employer and explained that an employer cannot take any adverse action against a worker who is contesting a TNC based on the TNC.  The employer accepted the explanation and decided to allow the worker to continue employment without any further delays.

New York, NY

On November 9, 2017, IER successfully intervened in a matter involving the misuse of E-Verify, resulting in an offer of re-hire and back pay.  A U.S. citizen worker called IER’s worker hotline because her employer, a dental care provider, suspended her from work after she received a TNC from E-Verify.  The worker shared that upon receiving the TNC, the employer created a new case but received another TNC, failed to provide her with the appropriate paperwork to contest the TNC, and suspended her until she resolved the TNC.  IER reached out to the employer and explained proper TNC procedures and provided information about IER’s webinars.  The employer decided to offer the employee reinstatement, though the worker ultimately decided not to return to the job.

North Carolina

On November 21, 2017, IER assisted a lawful permanent resident in starting her job with a restaurant.  The worker’s representative called IER because the employer delayed the worker’s start date by several weeks due to an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC).  The employer said that the worker could not start her job until she resolved the mismatch, but did not provide her the required notices with instructions on how to resolve the TNC.  IER reached out to the company and the employer decided to follow E-Verify instructions for handling E-Verify cases and allowed the worker to start her job. 

California

On November 22, 2017, IER learned that it had successfully intervened on behalf of a worker who had been improperly terminated by a large, international company for receiving a tentative nonconfirmation (TNC) in the E-Verify system.  The employer terminated the worker rather than letting her continue to work during the TNC resolution process.  The worker contacted E-Verify when she was terminated, and E-Verify provided the worker with IER’s contact information.  IER reached out to the employer, and the employer decided to reinstate the work and provided back pay for the hours she missed, totaling approximately $1,100.

Jacksonville, FL

On November 27, 2017, IER learned that it had saved the job of a U.S. citizen whose employer did not let her work based on an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation.  The worker contacted IER after her employer told her that she would not be able to work because of an issue with her Form I-9.  IER contacted the employer and learned that an inputting error caused the employer to receive a TNC.  IER provided guidance on proper TNC procedures and pointed the employer to E-Verify’s instructions for handling a case where the employer enters incorrect information.  The employer decided to bring the worker back to work immediately and provided additional training at the location to avoid future issues handling E-Verify cases.

Brooklyn, NY

On November 30, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident who was suspended from work after her employer received a tentative nonconfirmation from E-Verify.  The employer incorrectly told the worker she had a problem with her Social Security card after the employer received a DHS tentative nonconfirmation, and the employer did not provide the E-Verify print out informing the employee how to resolve the issue.  IER staff called the employer and explained the different types of tentative nonconfirmations and an employee’s right to continue working while contesting the tentative nonconfirmation.  The employer decided to reinstate the worker.

Phoenix, AZ

On December 14, 2017, an IER staffer completed a successful intervention on behalf of a U.S. citizen whose employer did not properly notify him of the steps required to contest an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC), resulting in an erroneous final nonconfirmation (FNC) result.  The employer, a retail store, fired the worker for the FNC.  IER called the employer and offered guidance on appropriate TNC procedures.  The employer decided to reinstate the worker, follow E-Verify procedures for creating a new case, and give the worker two weeks of back pay for the time he was out of work.

Colorado Springs, CO

On January 10, 2018, a worker asked IER to intervene after his employer terminated him for receiving an E‐Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC). The employer had resolved the TNC but incorrectly thought the worker’ Employment Authorization Document was no longer valid. IER staff provided information about the rights of workers to contest TNCs and about automatic extensions given to certain Aliens Authorized to Work. Based on this information, the employer decided to reinstate the worker.

Los Angeles, CA

On January 17, 2018, IER saved the job of an LPR whose employer fired her after receiving a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC). The LPR’s spouse called IER because he had been unable to contact any relevant HR employees for his wife’s work‐site. IER located the compliance manager at the employer’s corporate headquarters, and provided guidance regarding proper E‐Verify TNC procedures and acceptable Form I‐9 documentation. IER clarified that employers cannot reject a Permanent Resident Card that has been extended through an I‐797. The company subsequently confirmed that it put the LPR back to work immediately.

Lilburn, GA

On January 19, 2018, IER intervened and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The employer assumed that the worker was a U.S. citizen and entered the wrong information into E‐Verify, which resulted in a tentative nonconfirmation (TNC). The worker contacted IER after his employer told him that he would not be able to work because of the TNC. IER contacted the employer and informed it that the data entry error resulted in a TNC. IER provided guidance on proper TNC procedures and pointed the employer to E‐Verify’s instructions for handling a case where the employer renters incorrect information. The employer decided to bring the worker back to work immediately.

Paramount, CA

On January 30, 2018, IER completed a successful intervention assisting a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) to begin work after his employer refused to allow him to start due to an issue with his E‐Verify case. The employer was unaware of the steps to follow in E‐Verify when a worker presented an older Permanent Resident Card with not expiration date. The employer told the worker that the worker’s card was expired and refused to employ him. IER spoke with the employer and provided the guidance from the E‐Verify technical help desk on how to enter these types of cards into E‐Verify. The company decided to allow the worker to begin working and pay him back pay for the time he was not allowed to work.

Greenville, SC

On February 10, 2018, IER learned that it facilitated a lawful permanent resident’s return to work. The worker contacted the IER hotline because he required assistance resolving an erroneous E‐Verify Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) that resulted in his termination from work. The worker was especially distressed, because he relocated for the position, and has a family to support. IER contacted the employer to refer it to USCIS guidance regarding FNC results that may be erroneous. The employer decided to open a new E‐Verify case, and allowed the worker to return to work the next workday. The worker was able to resolve the case.

Los Angeles, CA

On February 22, 2018, an IER staffer completed a successful intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident whose employer wanted to reverify his employment eligibility with a new Permanent Resident Card when his old one expired. The worker called IER and IER called the employer and explained that a Permanent Resident Card never needs to be reverified. The employer understood and decided to allow to worker to continue working without further issue.

Austin, TX

On March 26, 2018, IER successfully intervened in a matter involving the misuse of E‐Verify, resulting in reinstatement and back pay. A U.S. citizen worker called IER’s worker hotline because his employer terminated his employment after he received an E‐Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC). The worker related that he contested the TNC, but his employer terminated his employment three days later. The worker, who had relocated to Austin, TX, for the job, spent a week unemployed. IER reached out to the employer’ attorney and explained proper TNC procedures and provided a link to E‐Verify’s guidance on handling TNCs. The employer decided to reinstate the worker and paid him $1,196.91 in back pay.

Miami, FL

On April 2, 2018, IER successfully intervened in a matter involving a staffing company’s use of E‐Verify, allowing the caller to go forward in the placement process. A lawful permanent resident called IER’s worker hotline because her staffing company would not give her work assignments after she received a Tentative Nonnconfirmation (TNC) from E‐Verify. The employer had not yet completed a Form I‐9 for the worker, in contravention of E‐Verify rules which require employers to complete a Form I‐9 before creating an E‐Verify case. Nevertheless, the company required that the caller provide her I‐9 documents and a Permanent Resident Card specifically. When the company received a TNC, it did not provide the caller with the appropriate paperwork to contest the TNC, and informed her that she could not continue in the process. IER reached out to the employer and explained proper TNC procedures. Following E‐Verify instructions for handling a case created in error, the employer dismissed the prior E‐Verify case and completed a Form I‐9 for the caller, allowing her to show her choice of valid documentation The caller ultimately decided not take the assignment from the staffing company but was appreciative for the opportunity.

Macon, GA

On April 17, 2018, IER successfully intervened in a matter involving the misuse of E‐Verify, resulting in back pay. A U.S. citizen worker called IER’s worker hotline because his employer terminated his employment after he received an E‐Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC). The worker related that upon receiving the TNC, the employer failed to provide him with the appropriate paperwork to contest the TNC, and terminated his employment. The worker spent a month unemployed before starting a new job for the same company. IER reached out to the employer and explained proper TNC procedures and provided information about IER’s webinars. Within a week of IER’s call, the manager of the location that terminated the worker received training on the proper TNC procedures, and the worker received $880.00 in back pay for the month that he had been unemployed.

Baco Raton, FL

On April 20, 2018, a Haitian lawful permanent resident called IER for assistance in resolving an E‐Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC). The caller’s first language is Creole and his employer had difficulty assisting him. IER called the employer’s counsel and explained the miscommunication. The employer reviewed the E‐Verify submission and determined that the caller transposed some numbers on his Form I‐9 that may have caused the TNC. The employer followed E‐Verify’s instructions for handling cases that involve an inputting error, and the worker cleared E‐Verify.

Houston, TX

On June 4, 2018, IER intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The LPR received a, E‐Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC) and the employer terminated the worker without providing her a right to contest the TNC. IER called the employer and explained proper E‐Verify TNC procedures. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue to work and indicated it would provide back pay for the time missed. In addition, the employer signed up for an IER webinar.

Boston, MA

On June 27, 2018, IER successfully intervened in a matter involving an E‐Verify issue. A naturalized U.S. citizen from Jamaica called IER’s worker hotline because her employer terminated her based on an E‐Verify final nonconfirmation (FNC). The employer initially did not allow the caller to work based on the E‐Verify tentative nonconfirmation. The caller went to Social Security Administration (SSA) office with her naturalization certification but E‐Verify ultimately issued an FNC and the employer terminated the worker. IER reached out to the employer and explained proper TNC procedures. IER reached out to DHS, as well. Two days later, the employer called IER and stated it started a new case and received an Employment Authorized result and the caller returned to work.

Tacoma, WA

On August 3, 2018, IER successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia to be placed for a position through a staffing agency. After E‐Verify produced a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) result, the staffing agency requested additional documents from the worker, created several additional E‐Verify cases, and delayed the worker’ start date. The staffing agency did not provide the worker with the Further Action Notice that would instruct the worker how to resolve the TNC. IER contacted the staffing agency and explained that workers must be given an opportunity to take action to resolve a TNC, and an employer should not delay a start date based on a TNC if a worker has decided to work to resolve the TNC. IER also explained that employers may not request more or different documents than required for employment authorization purposes. The staffing agency decided to create a new case, permitted the worker to go through the TNC resolution process, and placed her for a position in the meantime.

 

Fiscal Year 2017

Tracy, CA

On October 17, 2016, OSC learned that it had saved the job of a worker who had received a TNC in E‐Verify. The worker had been told that she could not return to work after HR received the TNC. OSC called the employer to explain that adverse employment actions should not be taken against workers while they contest a TNC. The worker called OSC and advised that it had allowed the worker to return to work without any further issues.

Oakland, CA

On October 19, 2016, OSC learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who had been told that he could not work or be paid because of an SSA TNC. The employee had worked for four days of training when he was informed that a problem occurred when running E‐Verify and he needed to resolve it with SSA. However, the worker was not provided with the Further Action Notice and was therefore unsuccessful when he went to SSA. The worker was told that he could not continue to work or be paid for his past work without resolving this matter, because his Social Security number had to be in the payroll system in order to issue him a check. The OSC attorney contacted counsel for the employer and explained the situation. Although the worker was not interested in returning to this position, the employer decided to pay him back pay.

Belleville, NJ

On November 7, 2016, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an LPR to return to work after being suspended for an E‐Verity No Show, a form of a TNC. The company acknowledged that it did not have evidence that it gave the Referral Date Confirmation Notice to the worker after he signed the E‐Verify Further Action Notice indicating that he would like to contest the TNC. The worker did call DHS within eight federal workdays and the E‐Verify system classified him as a No Show. An OSC staffer called the company and explained that if a worker contests a TNC, the company must provide the worker with a copy of the Referral Date Confirmation notice, and that this notice is translated into multiple languages if the worker desires a language other than English. The company stated it would contact the worker for rehire and ensure that it follows the proper E‐Verify procedures when creating a new case.

Savannah, GA

On November 7, 2016, OSC assisted a U.S. citizen return to work after his employer said he could not return until he resolved an E‐Verify TNC. The worker contacted OSC after being told he had to resolve his E‐Verify TNC prior to returning to work. OSC contacted the employer and the employer decided that the worker should return to work.

Houston, TX

On November 14, 2016, OSC received a call on its worker hotline from a worker who was suspended after receiving a an E‐Verify TNC. According to the worker, she was told that she could not continue working until she resolved the issue with DHS. Upon the worker’s request, an OSC attorney contacted the employer and explained proper E‐Verify procedures. The employer explained that this was a misunderstanding and noted that the worker would be notified that she was back on the schedule. Later that afternoon, the worker confirmed that she received a call and was headed to work to start her shift.

Oakland, CA

On January 25, 2017, an immigrant outreach specialist called on behalf of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The LPR applied for a job with an employer who used E‐Verify. The LPR demonstrated that he was able to work using a List B document and his Social Security card. However, the LPR received an E‐Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC). The specialist, with IER’s assistance, called DHS’s USCIS hotline to identify why the TNC issued. The next day, the specialist confirmed that the TNC issue was resolved and LPR started work.

Sterling, VA

On March 3, 2017, IER learned that it had saved the job of a worker who had been suspended after receiving an E‐Verify TNC, and that the worker had been paid backpay. The worker was told the company's policy required that he not be permitted to work until the TNC was resolved. After the worker contacted IER’s hotline, an IER attorney contacted the employer, explained proper TNC procedures, and emailed the employer USCIS resources on handling TNCs. The worker was returned to work the following day, and was paid approximately $420 in backpay for the eight work days he had missed during his unlawful suspension.

Albuquerque, NM

On March 7, 2017, IER intervened to save the job of an Alien Authorized to work with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status. After working at his job for several weeks, the worker received an E‐Verify TNC. The employer believed that the worker would not be able to clear the TNC and fired him. The worker called IER, in turn, IER called the employer and explained proper rules for handling TNCs. The employer accepted the explanation and decided to return the worker to his job and follow proper procedures for handling the worker’s TNC. The employer also decided to pay the worker $759.00 in lost wages.

Pembroke Pines, FL

On March 8, 2017, IER learned that it had saved the job of an LPR from the Dominican Republic, whose employer threatened to terminate him if he did not resolve an E‐Verify TNC by the end of the week. The worker contacted IER’s Hotline after his employer, a construction company, demanded that he resolve the TNC by the end of the week, instead of allowing the worker to continue to work while contesting the TNC. IER staff contacted the employer, shared information regarding the TNC process, including an employer’s obligation not to take adverse action against a worker who decides to contest a TNC based on the TNC, unless and until E‐Verify issues a final nonconfirmation. The employer decided to follow proper E‐Verify procedures. Pursuant to IER’s guidance, the worker visited the SSA, corrected the problem, and was successfully run through E‐Verify. IER also shared with the employer information about IER’s employer webinars, and links to USCIS and E‐Verify resources.

New Orleans, LA

On June 7, 2017, IER saved the job of a worker with Haitian TPS. The employer suspended the worker after receiving an E‐Verify FNC but the worker stated she never received a Further Action Notice with instructions for resolving the TNC, only an email from E‐Verify notifying her of the TNC. The IER staff member contacted the employer and explained the E‐Verify rules that require an employer to provide a worker with a Further Action Notice and give the worker the opportunity to contest the TNC. The employer also identified an inputting error that caused the TNC. As a result of IER’s intervention, the employer reentered the employee in E‐Verify and received a match. The employer decided to immediately reinstate the worker without loss of pay.

Milwaukee, WI

On July 14, 2017, IER saved the job of a U.S. Citizen who had been told that she could not start work until she had resolved a Social Security Administration E‐Verify TNC. The employee had accepted a position with a staffing agency when she was informed that she had received an E‐Verify TNC. The employee timely contacted SSA, but was told that she could not start work before resolving this matter. An IER attorney contacted the employer and explained the situation, and the worker was permitted to start work.

New York, NY

On August 2, 2017, IER learned that it facilitated a worker’s return to work.  The worker contacted the IER hotline because she required assistance resolving an erroneous E-Verify Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) that resulted in her termination from work.  The worker’s language barrier prevented her from addressing the matter clearly with her employer.  IER contacted the employer to refer it to USCIS guidance regarding FNC results that may be erroneous.  The employer decided to open a new E-Verify case, and allowed the worker to return to work two days later.  The worker expressed relief to have her job back and expressed to IER staff, “You really helped me.  I had no idea what to do.  Thank you so much.”

Huntington Park, CA

On September 1, 2017, IER saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen whose employer fired him when he received an E-Verify TNC. The worker’s date of birth was listed incorrectly in the SSA database.  The worker visited SSA to begin the process of resolving the mismatch but the employer then incorrectly took the worker off of payroll while the TNC was still pending, believing that the worker needed to resolve the TNC after eight days. IER called the employer to explain that the worker should continue to work during the TNC. The employer was happy to hear that the worker should continue working during the TNC process, and was grateful to learn of IER’s free resources for employers.

Tucson, AZ

On September 25, 2017, IER learned that a worker from the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) was able to return to work after IER assisted him with resolving an E-Verify final nonconfirmation.  Workers from the RMI are eligible to live and work indefinitely in the United States.  The worker received an E-Verify TNC and did not understand the requirement to contact DHS within eight government work days of when his case was referred.  E-Verify then issued an FNC.  The worker called IER and IER assisted the worker in contacting E-Verify to have his case reviewed again.  E-Verify confirmed the worker’s employment authorization and contacted his employer.  The employer decided to allow the worker to return to his job immediately.

 

Fiscal Year 2016

Downey, CA

On December 9, 2015, a worker called OSC because her employer did not allow her to continue working until she resolved the TNC generated by E‐Verify. OSC contacted the employer and explained the appropriate protocol for handling TNCs, which includes allowing the employee to continue working while contesting a TNC. OSC also contacted the employer’s legal counsel and advised him of what had occurred. The employer immediately contacted the worker and placed her on the schedule. The employer also agreed to meet with its HR officials to ensure that the appropriate E‐Verify procedures are being followed.

San Francisco, CA

On December 22, 2015, OSC successfully completed an intervention on behalf of a U.S. citizen. The worker, who works for a national delivery service, had received a TNC from E‐Verify, and decided to contest the notice. While the company allowed the worker an opportunity to resolve the matter, the company withheld his pay until the matter was resolved. OSC staff reached out to the company’s HR department, and explained that the company could not withhold pay for the worker based on the TNC. The company’s HR department provided a total of $1015.00 in back pay to the worker.

Palm Harbor, FL

On March 2, 2016, OSC learned that its efforts had allowed a U.S. citizen to start work at a company. The worker called OSC because her new employer would not let her start work after she received a TNC from E‐Verify, even though the worker was contesting the TNC. An OSC attorney called the employer and explained proper E‐Verify procedures, and the employer decided to allow the worker to start working.

Fayetteville, NC

On March 14, 2016, OSC learned that an LPR was not allowed to begin work because his employer stated that the alien number provided by the worker was invalid and did not clear E‐Verify. OSC called the employer and, based on information publicly available on the USCIS website, explained that a zero can be added to the beginning of the worker’s eight‐digit alien number to satisfy the E‐Verify request for a nine‐digit alien number. The employer was able to complete the E‐Verify query and received an “Employment Authorized” result. The employer will have the worker start immediately.

Anchorage, AK

On March 14, 2016, an OSC staff member saved the job of an LPR who was improperly terminated during the I‐9 and E‐Verify processes. The company had been bought by another company and the new company chose to reverify the exiting workforce and run the employees through E‐Verify. The worker presented her LPR card, which was an older card with no expiration date, and her unrestricted Social Security card. The employer told the worker that she had to present an updated card and would not be allowed to work until she had a new card with an expiration date. The worker was also run through E‐Verify and was told that there was an issue that needed to be resolved, but the worker was not provided with the Further Action Notice and was told that someone in corporate would contact the worker. After waiting for six weeks to hear back from the company, the worker contacted OSC. The OSC staff member contacted the employer’s HR office and explained the validity of the documents provided for the Form I‐9 and also explained that the employer is responsible for providing notice letters to all workers who receive a TNC. The employer stated that it is aware of the Form I‐9 and E‐Verify policies and regulations and abides by them, but admitted that during the takeover of the company it had made an error regarding this worker and was eager to rectify the error. The company reinstated the employee with seniority and six weeks of back pay owed in the amount of $4,200.

Woodbridge, NJ

On March 17, 2016, an OSC attorney learned that her intervention saved a naturalized U.S. citizen’s job. The worker, who was employed part‐time unloading trucks for a national employer, was informed by the HR department in mid‐February that he could not continue to work due to an E‐Verify issue. Although the employer later admitted that it had never provided the worker with a Further Action Notice after the worker received a TNC, the worker reviewed his own email inbox and found two email notices from USCIS advising him of the TNC. By the time the worker learned of the TNC and found the emails, however, his TNC had converted to a final nonconfirmation. The worker visited SSA to resolve the issue, and although SSA was able to update its records to reflect the worker’s status as a U.S. citizen, SSA could not assist the worker to reverse the final nonconfirmation. The worker contacted OSC, and after a series of conversations with an attorney in the employer’s office of general counsel, the employer decided to return the worker to the job and paid him $341 in back pay for the time he should have been working.

Hattiesburg, MS

On April 1, 2016, OSC intervened to allow a U.S. citizen to begin work. The worker worked one day and then received a TNC from E‐Verify. The employer, a retail store, told the worker that she could not continue to work until the TNC was resolved. OSC called the employer to explain that the worker should be allowed to continue to work while a TNC is being resolved. The employer stated that its payroll software would not allow it to process an employee until there is a final E‐Verify result. OSC explained that the software problem does not absolve the employer of its obligations to comply with EVerify rules while resolving a TNC. The employer decided to allow the worker to continue to work.

Branson, MO

On April 6, 2016, a work‐authorized individual called OSC’s hotline because the worker’s employer had either rescinded her job offer or delayed her start date. The employer did not recognize the worker’s valid EAD and entered it incorrectly into the E‐Verify system, resulting in a TNC. OSC explained to the employer that employees who have elected to challenge a TNC, as the caller had, must be allowed to continue working as long as the TNC is pending. OSC provided the employer with the E‐Verify customer service hotline number to help the employer modify the query in E‐Verify. The employer then allowed the worker to begin work the following day.

Corpus Christi, TX

On April 13, 2016, an OSC staff member saved the job of a U.S. Citizen who was improperly terminated during the E‐Verify process. The worker reported that he had been terminated due to a “flag” in the I‐9 process that indicated he was not work‐authorized. The worker was not notified that he had received a TNC and did not receive a Further Action Notice (FAN). The OSC attorney contacted the worker’s employer and explained proper practices in using E‐Verify, including that the employer must notify employees of TNCs, allow them the choice of whether or not to contest, and to provide FANs. The OSC attorney also explained that the employer must allow the worker to continue to work while an E‐Verify query is being processed and during the resolution of a contested TNC. The employer subsequently corrected erroneous information regarding the worker and received a case outcome of “Employment Authorized.” The employer promptly informed the OSC attorney that the error had been corrected and invited the worker to return to work.

Tallahassee, FL

On April 15, 2016, a work‐authorized immigrant was allowed to join a staffing agency’s candidate pool after an OSC intervention. The immigrant, a French‐speaking asylee with limited English proficiency, received a TNC in the E‐Verify system and was not provided with sufficient information for him to know how to resolve the TNC or whether he could work. He contacted OSC, and the OSC staffer explained correct I‐9/E‐Verify practices and TNC procedures to the worker in French through an interpreter. The OSC staffer then contacted the worker’s employer to clarify what had occurred and to confirm that the worker had been provided the correct paperwork and would be allowed to join the agency’s pool while he resolved the TNC. The employer thanked the OSC staffer for addressing the problem and contacted the worker to confirm he could join the agency.

Elkhart, IN

On April 27, 2016, OSC saved the job of an LPR whose employer had not followed proper E‐Verify procedures. The LPR had received an E‐Verify TNC but her manager had not told her about the issue. Instead, the manager gave the worker the Form I‐9 instructions and merely stated that the worker’s documents were not valid. The worker called OSC and spoke with an OSC attorney. The OSC attorney called the company’s HR representative, and learned that the worker had received a TNC. The OSC attorney explained that the worker should be given an opportunity to review the information entered into E‐Verify and contest the TNC if the information was entered correctly. The worker went to the HR office and determined that her birth date had been incorrectly entered into E‐Verify by the employer, which resulted in the TNC. The employer re‐ran the E‐Verify query with the correct date and the worker received an employment authorized result. The OSC attorney gave the employer additional information about the TNC process, and informed the employer about free OSC resources, such as the employer hotline.

Gainesville, GA

On May 9, 2016, OSC learned that it saved the job of a work‐authorized immigrant after the employer had incorrectly terminated the worker while he was resolving a TNC. The worker had originally received the TNC due to a date of birth error on his renewed EAD, which he had received shortly before he was hired. The employer wrongly believed that while the TNC was in process, it needed to terminate the worker and close the E‐Verify case even though the worker did not receive an FNC. The worker contacted OSC after he was fired. OSC called the employer and suggested that the employer rerun the E‐Verify query to permit USCIS to examine the issue anew, and to permit the worker to return to his job. During this time, OSC also contacted E‐Verify to advise of the problem. After re‐running the E‐Verify query, the employer eventually received an employment authorized result for the worker.

San Diego, CA

On May 17, 2016, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of an LPR whose Permanent Resident Card (Form I‐551) was issued in 1985 bearing no expiration date and having only eight digits for the Alien number. The employer submitted an E‐Verify query, which resulted in a TNC. The employer told the worker that she needed to correct the E‐Verify issue in order to continue employment. OSC contacted the HR director to discuss the E‐Verify procedures. OSC explained to the HR director that the employer is not supposed to take any adverse action against a worker who is attempting to resolve a TNC. OSC also explained that the employer only needed to include a number zero in the beginning of the Alien number in order to convert it into a nine‐digit number for the E-Verify query. The employer called the worker back to work immediately.

Chapel Hill, NC

On June 3, 2016, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a worker to be offered reinstatement with back pay. The employer participates in E‐Verify and received an E‐Verify TNC for the worker due to a name discrepancy. Instead of providing the worker the E‐Verify Further Action Notice and the opportunity to contest the TNC, the employer fired the worker. An OSC staff member contacted the employer and shared Form I‐9 and E‐Verify resources for handling name discrepancies in Form I‐9 and E‐Verify. After OSC’s call, the employer immediately offered the worker reinstatement, back pay, and the removal of any reference to the termination from the worker’s file.

Chula Vista, CA

On June 9, 2016, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The employer, a national fast food chain, had suspended the worker after she received a TNC from DHS. The worker called OSC and related that she had lost her Permanent Resident Card, but she had written down her alien number and provided it to the employer when the employer ran her through EVerify. When she received her TNC notice, the worker noticed that the employer had inputted an incorrect alien number. OSC contacted the employer and explained that it should process the worker using the correct information, and that it should not have suspended the worker due to a TNC. The employer immediately processed the worker through E‐Verify with the correct information, and received an employment authorized result.

Memphis, TN

On July 20, 2016, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The worker had accepted a job offer from a national retail chain. She was processed through E-Verify, initially receiving a TNC, which she decided to contest, and eventually receiving an FNC. The employer terminated her as a result of the FNC, and the worker reached out to OSC. OSC contacted the employer, resulting in the employer re‐submitting the worker through the E‐Verify System with corrected information. Upon resubmission, E‐Verify confirmed the worker’s eligibility to work, and the worker was reinstated.

San Diego, CA

On August 26, 2016, OSC learned that it had saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who was improperly suspended because his employer was awaiting a “work authorized” result from E‐Verify. The OSC attorney contacted the employer and explained proper protocol for processing employees through E‐Verify, including handling tentative nonconfirmation results. The worker was immediately reinstated.

Indianapolis, IN

On September 28, 2016, OSC learned that it had saved the job of a worker who had been suspended from her restaurant job after receiving an E‐Verify Tentative Non‐Confirmation result. The employer was not aware of E‐Verify requirements and had not provided the worker with a referral or Further Action Notice. As a result, the worker did not know which agency to contact to resolve the TNC. An OSC attorney contacted the employer and explained proper E‐Verify requirements, including that no adverse employment actions should be taken against workers during the resolution of a TNC. The worker was allowed to return to work the next day and was given the proper E‐Verify notice to allow her to contact the appropriate agency to resolve the TNC.

 

Fiscal Year 2015

Alexandria, VA

On October 20, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker applied for a job and was asked by the employer to fill out the Form I-9 before hire. The worker presented her Permanent Resident Card during the application process, and in turn the employer ran an E-Verify query that resulted in a DHS TNC. The worker called OSC, and in turn OSC called the employer's headquarters and explained that the E-Verify query should not be run until after hire. The employer decided to hire the applicant immediately.

Boston, MA

On November 20, 2014, OSC saved the job of an LPR who was told he would be unable to be placed in a position by a staffing company as the result of an E-Verify TNC. The OSC attorney called the staffing agency and explained that the company should not take any adverse action against the worker unless and until the worker received an FNC. The company was grateful for the information regarding E-Verify TNCs and the availability of OSC as a resource. The company stated that it had a job opening available for the LPR and that he could begin working immediately.

Summerville, SC

On March 2, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was hired by a regional restaurant chain headquartered in Lebanon, TN. The day the worker was set to start, the restaurant experienced technical difficulties with the system they use to complete the Form I‐9 and E‐Verify processes. When the worker was not called back to the job and her husband inquired about the reason, the manager of the restaurant explained that the worker’s information was run through E‐Verify and the restaurant received an “incorrect” result. The employer was reluctant to employ the worker, believing that the result meant that the workers would only be able to work for a few days. The worker never received a Further Action Notice or any information about the E‐Verify result or how to contest the result. The worker and her husband called OSC for assistance. OSC staff contacted corporate counsel, and corporate counsel reinstated the worker immediately. The worker does not wish to file a charge at this time for any back pay that she may be entitled to.

Atlanta, GA

On March 24, 2015, OSC assisted a U.S. citizen avoid a delay in starting her new job. The worker’s employer, a healthcare provider, informed the worker that she received an E‐Verify TNC but did not provide the Further Action Notice, and told the worker that she had three days to resolve the issue. The worker spent a day visiting both SSA and the local USCIS office, and USCIS gave her OSC’s number. OSC contacted the employer and explained that the worker needed her Further Action Notice to know how to resolve the TNC and also explained proper TNC procedures, including the time period the worker has to contact the appropriate agency and the importance of not taking any adverse action unless and until the employer has received an FNC. The worker’s case was resolved without missing any work.

Los Angeles, CA

On March 26, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of a worker. The worker was hired for a job but his employer informed him that because it is enrolled in E‐Verify, the worker had to provide a Social Security number in order to begin working. The worker called OSC’s hotline, and OSC immediately contacted the employer. OSC explained, citing the relevant public USCIS materials, that E‐Verify employers should delay running E‐Verify queries for employees who are awaiting their Social Security numbers but can otherwise complete the Form I‐9, and allow such employees to start and continue working. The employer immediately reinstated the worker.

Tyler, TX

On April 2, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of a worker. The worker called OSC’s hotline after he received a DHS TNC in E‐Verify, which he decided to contest. The worker stated that his employer was planning to suspend him based on the TNC. OSC immediately contacted the employer and stated that employers should not take adverse action while a worker is contesting a TNC, unless and until an employee receives an FNC. The employer stated that he believed he could only employ the worker for eight days after receiving a TNC, after which time he would need to suspend the worker. OSC informed the employer that workers who receive TNCs and wish to contest them must contact the appropriate government agency within eight federal government working days of the date the TNC is referred in the E‐Verify system. OSC clarified that TNCs do not need to be fully resolved within eight federal government working days; the worker simply needs to begin the resolution process by contacting the appropriate agency within that timeframe. The employer understood and decided to allow the worker to continue working while awaiting a final case result.

Harrisburg, NC

On April 15, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of a U.S. citizen. The worker had just been hired by a staffing company and was set to go on assignment on April 16th. The staffing agency ran the worker through E‐Verify and the worker received a TNC. The staffing agency told the worker that they planned to delay her start date until she could clear E‐Verify. The worker called OSC, and OSC contacted the staffing agency and explained that employers should not take adverse action against workers based on a TNC, unless and until the worker receives an FNC. The employer agreed to allow the worker to go on assignment.

Garden City, NY

On April 16, 2015, an OSC staff member saved the job of an LPR who was terminated during the E‐Verify process, and was out of work for approximately six weeks as a result. The worker produced her valid driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card for Form I‐9 purposes. She also listed her alien registration number in Section 1 of the Form I‐9. When the employer, a major clothing retailer, input the information into E‐Verify, it received a message indicating that the alien registration number was incorrect. The employer then requested that the worker produce her Permanent Resident Card to verify her alien number rather than reviewing the information with the worker in order to verify that the employer entered the number correctly into the system. The worker brought in her Permanent Resident Card, which had expired. As a result, the employer accused the employee of not being authorized to work in the United States and terminated her. OSC contacted the employer, and the company contended that it had every right to request the Permanent Resident Card in order to comply with its E‐Verify MOU. The OSC staff member explained proper verification procedures, but also pointed out that while it was improper to request the additional document, the worker produced it and the company could have verified the number based on the card. Additionally, since the worker did not produce the Permanent Resident Card for the purpose of completing the Form I‐9, the expiration date on that card was inconsequential. When the company insisted that the employer’s actions were proper, the OSC staffer tracked down contact information for the company’s corporate counsel through its parents company in Toronto, Canada. When the OSC staffer explained the situation to counsel, the company decided to reenter the worker’s information that was provided on the Form I‐9. As a result, the E‐Verify data matched and the worker was reinstated.

Sunnyvale, TX

On April 20, 2015, an OSC staff member saved the job of a U.S. citizen who had received an E‐Verify SSA FNC even though the worker contested the TNC and had timely visited SSA to address the TNC. The worker hyphenates his last name, which appears hyphenated on his driver’s license, but not on his Social Security card. When the worker visited SSA, he showed his TNC notice and worked with an SSA representative to supposedly correct his record. SSA advised the worker that it had corrected his record to reflect the worker’s hyphenated name, but also advised the worker that it had deleted some information related to his record in the E‐Verify system. The worker’s TNC then converted to an FNC only two days after the TNC was issued. The employer terminated the employee. The worker attempted to appeal the FNC through USCIS’s E‐Verify hotline. Because the worker is a native‐born citizen, however, E‐Verify was unable to accept his appeal (DHS does not have information about native‐born citizens). An OSC staff member contacted the employer, explained the situation and worked with the employer to come up with a solution that would allow the employer to comply with its E‐Verify obligations and keep the worker employed. The staff member advised the employer to close out the last E‐Verify query, reenter the worker’s information in a new query and type in the worker’s name with the corrected hyphenated last name. The employer received an employment authorized result in E‐Verify, and the worker was reinstated.

Orlando, FL

On June 25, 2015, OSC intervened to save the job of a U.S. citizen who was born in Puerto Rico. The worker was hired by a Florida air conditioning service company. The worker showed a List B document and a receipt for the replacement of his lost Social Security card to complete the I‐9. The employer ran the worker through E‐Verify and received an SSA TNC. At this point, the employer took him off his shift, and explained that the worker needed to provide them with a new Social Security card to return to work. The worker called OSC for information on how to resolve the TNC. OSC staff contacted the employer, and after providing guidance on the E‐Verify process the company reinstated the worker immediately. The worker visited SSA which explained the input error that triggered the TNC and how to resolve the TNC. The company corrected the error, and the worker continues to work without any issues.

Spokane, WA

On July 14, 2015, OSC assisted a worker in appealing his erroneous FNC. The worker received an SSA FNC because SSA was unable to confirm his U.S. citizenship. The worker called OSC, and OSC assisted the worker in calling the E‐Verify hotline to appeal the FNC. The worker faxed additional documents to E‐Verify, and E‐Verify subsequently sent the worker’s employer an FNC status update letter, alerting the employer that the worker was found to be employment authorized. The employer allowed the worker to continue working pursuant to this update.

St. Paul, MN

On July 15, 2015, OSC prevented an employer from delaying the start date of a U.S. citizen. The citizen, a native of Puerto Rico, had received a TNC from her new employer and called our hotline because she did not fully understand the TNC. The employer, a home health care company, had provided the caller with OSC’s hotline number. After consulting with the employer and the caller, OSC was able to ascertain that the employer had erroneously entered the caller’s paternal last name as her middle name during the E‐Verify process, which caused E‐Verify to generate a DHS TNC. The employer corrected the problem and the worker is scheduled to begin her new job on July 17, 2015.

Oak Brook, IL

On July 16, 2015, OSC completed a successful intervention on behalf of a natural born U.S. citizen who was terminated during the E‐Verify process. The employee received a TNC and contested the TNC, but the employee stated that the employer failed to provide the employee with the actual notice letter explaining the next steps the employee must take to correct the TNC. Therefore, the employee never contacted DHS to resolve the TNC. Three weeks later, the employee was terminated because the TNC turned into an FNC. OSC contacted E‐Verify which identified a glitch that caused the original TNC and was able to resolve the case. OSC successfully resolved the issue with the employer who agreed to reinstate the employee.

Chicago, IL

On July 28, 2015, OSC saved the job of a refugee whose employer needed guidance to submit the individual’s information through E‐Verify. The refugee’s service provider called an OSC attorney after having seen an OSC webinar several months before. The service provider gave OSC the employer’s information, and the attorney called the employer and walked the employer through the process of running the employee through E‐Verify. The employee received an “employment authorized” result. The employer was grateful for the assistance and noted OSC’s hotline information for any further issues.

New York, NY

On August 7, 2015, OSC saved the job of an LPR. The employer received a DHS TNC in E‐Verify and called a DHS customer service agent, but was given incorrect instructions on how to proceed and an FNC issued. The employer terminated the worker, and the worker called OSC’s hotline for assistance. An OSC attorney called the employer to get more information about what occurred and then later called the E‐Verify Customer Service hotline with the worker. E‐Verify determined that the worker was employment authorized, reversed the FNC, and called the employer. Shortly after, OSC spoke to the employer and the worker returned to her job.

Albuquerque, NM

On August 31, 2015, OSC staff completed an intervention on behalf of a newly naturalized U.S. citizen who received an erroneous FNC from E‐Verify after visiting SSA and updating her records. On July 6, 2015, the worker began her new job at a large local healthcare provider that uses E‐Verify in Albuquerque, NM. The employer immediately alerted the worker that she had received a TNC from SSA, and the worker decided to contest the TNC. On July 9, 2015, the worker updated her records at SSA with her naturalization certificate and marriage license to update her name. By July 15, 2015, the employer had received a FNC, and asked the worker to return to SSA and get paperwork explaining the issues. When the worker returned to SSA, she received conflicting information about her case, and she was eventually told the status of the case may have been entered incorrectly. By July 24, 2015, the employer had received an erroneous FNC and terminated the worker. The worker immediately called OSC, and OSC called E‐Verify with the worker to get answers about this FNC notice. The worker’s information was still being updated at SSA, and SSA should have placed the case into continuance in EV‐STAR instead of closing it. The updated records would not appear for four weeks, so OSC staff provided the employer with this information and guidance about E‐Verify. Around July 30, 2015 the employer rehired and reran the worker through E‐Verify. The worker received a second TNC, but OSC immediately followed up with SSA to ensure the case remained in continuance until her records were updated. OSC investigator Abby Olson called SSA two different local branches of SSA once a week in order to obtain updates on the status of the case, and ensure that the case remained pending until the caller’s records were fully updated. After SSA updated the records on August 31, 2015, SSA immediately updated the E‐Verify case and the worker was deemed “employment authorized.” The worker continues to work for the employer without issues.

 

Fiscal Year 2014

Blowing Rock, NC

On November 6, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of a U. S. citizen. The worker was run through E-Verify and received an SSA TNC. The employer advised her that she could not continue working until the TNC was resolved. The worker visited the SSA office and was given a receipt to take back to her employer. However, the employer advised the worker to stay home until the issue was resolved. The worker called OSC; in turn OSC called the employer and explained that the worker must be allowed to continue with her employment during the TNC process. The employer decided to offer the worker his job back and to compensate him for lost wages in the amount of $430.

Hattiesburg, MS

On November 12, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker was run through E-Verify and received a DHS and SSA TNC on October 18, 2013, and was directed by his employer to contact SSA and DHS. The worker was able to resolve the SSA issue, but a DHS FNC was issued on October 31, 2013. The worker attempted to contact DHS to resolve the issue and was eventually referred to OSC. The worker was terminated on November 5th but with OSC guidance was able to correct the DHS issue. DHS issued an FNC status update form to the employer indicating that the worker was work-authorized, and the employer decided to reinstate the worker.

San Diego, CA

On December 20, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The employer, a large hospital, suspended the worker because the worker informed the employer that the name on her LPR card was different than the name on her driver's license and Social Security card, which bore her married name. The employer informed the worker that it would not run her information through E-Verify until all three documents showed the same name. OSC contacted the employer and informed the employer's legal counsel that the worker should be given the choice of which document or documents to present in order to complete Form I-9. OSC further advised that, once the worker completed Form I-9 and presented either one List A document or a combination of a List B and List C document, the employer could run her through the E-Verify System. OSC further explained that if E-Verify generated a TNC, the employer had to afford the worker the opportunity to resolve the TNC. The employer was grateful for OSC's guidance, and decided to immediately reinstate the worker. The employer ran the worker through E-Verify and received an employment authorizedresult for the worker.

Silver Spring, MD

On December 24, 2013, OSC learned that it had successfully intervened to assist an LPR in returning to work for an employer that is newly enrolled in E-Verify. The worker contacted OSC earlier in the month after she was terminated from her job with a national retail chain. The worker did not know why she was terminated but was told by the HR manager that her Permanent Resident Card was invalid and asked multiple times to present her Permanent Resident Card. The Special Policy Counsel contacted the company's legal department. Ultimately, outside counsel for the company researched the matter and learned that the manager had run the worker's information through E-Verify, received a TNC, and never notified the worker of the TNC. Outside counsel concluded that the TNC was a result of clerical entry errors. The company's payroll system requires all managers to indicate whether or not they have completed the I-9 and E-Verify processes. The manager failed to note in the payroll system that he had run the worker's information through E-Verify despite repeated requests by headquarters that he complete the I-9 and E-Verify processes for the worker. The headquarters HR staff later advised the manager to terminate the worker based on the belief that the worker was working without having completed the I-9 and E-Verify processes. Outside counsel notified OSC that the worker was reinstated, successfully run through E-Verify, and paid three days of back pay. The company also terminated the manager involved for poor performance and is undergoing E-Verify training for all staff using E-Verify.

Dallas, TX

On January 2, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The employer, a national package delivery firm, suspended the worker because she received a DHS TNC after the employer ran her through the E-Verify System. Further, the employer did not afford the worker an opportunity to resolve the TNC. The worker contacted OSC after speaking with DHS and learning that the TNC was issued because of a misspelling of her name. OSC contacted the employer and informed the employer that it could not suspend the worker while she sought to resolve the TNC. The employer decided to not only immediately re-instate the worker, but also provided her with $240 back pay for the two days that she was suspended.

Arcadia, CA

On January 23, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker, who naturalized several years ago, was hired by a large supermarket chain. During completion of her Form I-9, the worker presented a valid U.S. passport and a restricted Social Security card. The employer ran the worker through the E-Verify System, and received a TNC because SSA was unable to confirm the worker's citizenship. The worker contacted OSC's worker hotline, and related that she had become a naturalized U.S. citizen approximately ten years ago, but had not visited SSA to update her immigration status. OSC reached out to the employer to explain that the worker should not have been suspended while she sought to resolve the TNC. The employer decided to immediately reinstate the worker, and successfully ran her through E-Verify using her passport number. The employer was grateful for OSC's guidance and stated that it planned to participate in a future webinar training.

Portland, OR

On January 28, 2014, OSC completed a hotline intervention, assisting a U-visaholder in getting his job back. The worker's employer, a restaurant that uses E-Verify, terminated the worker after the worker received a TNC. The worker reads Spanish but only received an English version of the TNC notice, and the employer updated the case to say that the worker was terminated for not contesting the TNC. However, the worker visited SSA and called DHS. OSC contacted the employer, and the employer brought the worker back to work immediately and reran his E-Verify case, receiving an Employment Authorized result. The corporate office also counseled the local manager who handled the E-Verify case and will send a company-wide notice this week to all restaurants reminding them of the importance of handling TNCs properly, including providing notices in the worker's preferred language.

Phoenix, AZ

On February 5, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an alien authorized to work with TN immigration status. The worker presented her passport and I-94 indicating TN status for Form I-9 purposes. The employer, an E-Verify user, requested a Social Security number in order to process the E-Verify query. The worker had not applied for her Social Security number yet; consequently, the employer advised her to apply for a Social Security card and did not allow her to work until she received a number in order to complete the E-Verify query. The worker visited SSA to apply for a Social Security card. SSA processed the worker's application and referred her to OSC. OSC called the employer and explained that the E-Verify query could wait until the worker obtained a Social Security number, referring the employer to the E-Verify User's Manual. The employer decided to return the worker to the job immediately and paid her approximately $1,015.56 in lost wages.

San Antonio, TX

On February 7, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a work-authorized individual. The employer terminated the worker because she received a DHS TNC after the employer ran her through E-Verify. Although the employer was notified by DHS that the worker was work authorized, the employer wanted to wait until he received written confirmation of employment authorization in order to rehire the worker. The worker contacted OSC after resolving the DHS TNC because her employer would not rehire her. OSC contacted the employer and informed the employer that it could not terminate the worker based on a TNC. The employer decided to not only immediately re-instate the worker, but also provided her with approximately $450 in back pay for the time she lost during and after the TNC process. The employer also stated that it would attend an OSC employer webinar on February 19, 2014.

Long Island, NY

On February 13, 2014, OSC completed an intervention that resulted in a naturalized U.S. citizen being reinstated to his job after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued an erroneous E-Verify Final Non-Confirmation (FNC). During the E-Verify process, the Social Security Administration was unable to confirm the employee's citizenship status by using the employee's Driver's License and Social Security Card resulting in a Tentative Non-Confirmation (TNC) being issued. The employee contested the TNC and was directed to call DHS, which he did. The employee produced his Certificate of Naturalization number to a DHS supervising verification officer who then informed the employee that the matter had been resolved. Nonetheless, the employee received a DHS FNC and was terminated from employment. When the employee again called DHS, he was unable to resolve the issue. He contacted OSC, and OSC contacted a DHS supervising verification officer regarding why an FNC had been issued. As a result of OSC's inquiry to DHS, the problem was resolved within a day and the employer reinstated the employee.

Elma, WA

On March 25, 2014, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented his driver's license and Social Security card for Form I-9 purposes. The employer, an E-Verify user, requested to see his Permanent Resident Card in order to submit an E-Verify query. The worker did not have his card with him; consequently, the employer advised him to obtain the Permanent Resident Card so that it could run the E-Verify query. The worker called OSC, and an OSC staff member called the employer and explained that the E-Verify query could be processed without having physical possession of the card as long as the worker provides an Alien number in Section 1 of the I-9 Form. The OSC staff member referred the employer to the E-Verify User's Manual. The employer decided to process the E-Verify query immediately and received a work-authorized result for the worker.

Fairfield, AL

On April 29, 2014, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker provided her Permanent Resident Card for Form I-€9 purposes. The employer, an E-€Verify user, ran the worker's information through E-€Verify and received an SSA TNC. The employer advised the worker to take care of the TNC but stated that in the meantime she would not be allowed to work. The worker visited the SSA office and reported back to the employer; however, the employer insisted that she could not return to work because nothing was clear on the E-€Verify database. The worker called USCIS, and in turn USCIS referred the worker to OSC. OSC referred the employer to the E-€Verify user manual which states that an employer may not take any adverse action while the worker attempts to resolve the TNC. The employer decided to get the worker back to work immediately and to follow proper procedures. The employer stated that the company would pay approximately $1,584 in back pay for the time the worker was not allowed to work.

Salisbury, NC

On September 17, 2014, OSC intervened to obtain back pay and have a worker listed on the work schedule. The worker suffered adverse action by not being allowed to work following the employer's receipt of an E-Verify TNC. The employer promptly paid the worker back wages covering three weeks of missed work in the amount of $650, and placed the worker on the work schedule two business days later.

 

Fiscal Year 2013

San Diego, CA

On October 1, 2012, OSC completed a hotline intervention assisting a lawful permanent resident in starting a new job for a contractor subject to export control audits. The employer had requested proof of permanent residency for an export control audit but delayed the employee start date because it was not sure that it could use the employee's foreign passport with I-551 stamp to run the employee through E-Verify. OSC explained that E-Verify is to be used for employment eligibility purposes only, and that an E-Verify query should not delay a start date. The company brought the worker back on.

Memphis, TN

On October 17, 2012, OSC completed a hotline intervention assisting a U.S. citizen terminated as a result of an FNC result in the E-Verify process despite properly resolving her SSA TNC. Although the worker visited SSA to resolve the issue in a timely fashion, SSA failed to access EV-Star to update the E-Verify system based on the worker's visit, resulting in an FNC. OSC intervened and worked with the employer to correct the erroneous FNC and bring the worker back to work.

Malden, MA

On November 7, 2012, OSC completed an intervention assisting a naturalized U.S. citizen would resume her position after being terminated due to an E-Verify FNC issued in error. The worker called OSC because her employer terminated her due to an E-Verify case result, despite the fact that the worker had timely contested her TNC and visited the Social Security Administration as required. OSC and the worker called E-Verify's worker hotline and confirmed the erroneous FNC result. E-Verify confirmed the worker's work authorization and contacted the employer, which re-hired the worker that same day.

South Carolina

On November 26, 2012, OSC completed an intervention ensuring that a university's former employee received payment for the wages she earned during her temporary employment. The former employee, a student visaholder, called E-Verify because the university refused to issue her a paycheck for the time she worked on campus several months ago, citing an issue with E-Verify. E-Verify explained to the former employee that the university should not have run her through E-Verify as a former employee and referred her to OSC. OSC contacted the university and explained that an employer is only to run an individual who has been hired through E-Verify. The university paid the employee the full amount owed of $500.

Greensboro, NC

On December 13, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen working for a large national fast food restaurant. After a few days on the job the worker received an E-Verify TNC notice from the employer and was told that he could not work until the issue was resolved. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the manager at the restaurant and explained that no adverse action should be taken against the worker while he is trying to resolve the TNC. The manager accepted the explanation and allowed the worker to continue with his work schedule.

Charlotte, NC

On December 14, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The worker was recently hired and processed through E-Verify. She received an E-Verify SSA TNC notice from the employer based on a mistyped social security number. However, when the worker showed up at the SSA office to resolve the TNC, SSA personnel were unable to assist her because the referral letter was not signed by the employer. The worker asked the employer to sign the letter. The employer, a large retail store, processes E-Verify queries at a remote location; consequently, the letter was signed and the worker received an FNC. She was fired from her job. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC called the store's HR department and explained proper E-Verify procedures. The employer's legal counsel and HR staff decided to reinstate the worker immediately and pay lost wages in the amount of $642.

Ventura, CA

On December 20, 2012 OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). The employer, an E-Verify user, processed the information through E-Verify but received a Tentative Non-confirmation (TNC) notice from DHS. The employer provided the TNC notice to the worker and told her that she could return to work as soon as she got the TNC fixed. The worker called OSC, and OSC called the employer to let them know that they could not take any adverse action against the worker while she was trying to fix the TNC. The OSC equal opportunity specialist asked the employer to compare the employee's information in the TNC notice against the name on the worker's I-551, and the employer noticed that the names did not match. OSC advised the employer that this is one of the most common causes for TNCs for LPRs. OSC advised the employer that the worker should continue to work while she called USCIS/E-Verify to fix the TNC. The employer ran another query, processing the name as it appears on the I-551, and received an employment authorized.

Tustin, CA

On December 21, 2012, OSC completed a hotline intervention ensuring that a permanent resident could continue to work. The caller works for a gift supplier and the company requested a replacement I-551 when the caller's previous I-551 expired. The company further rejected the documentation the caller provided even though it established his work authorization. OSC contacted the company and went over the M-274's guidance on when and how to reverify employment authorization, and the company returned the caller to work with back pay.

Korbel, CA

On January 8, 2013 OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The worker was recently hired and processed through E-Verify. She received an SSA Tentative Non-Confirmation (TNC). The worker had become a naturalized U.S. citizen but never reported her change of status to the SSA, resulting in the SSA TNC. The following day after receiving the TNC, a staff member from the HR department took the worker to SSA because the worker did not have transportation. The worker provided SSA with her naturalization certificate; however SSA failed to update E-Verify records immediately; SSA told the worker that it could take up to four weeks to update her status, and a Final Non-confirmation issued. The worker was told that she would have to be fired. The worker called OSC, and OSC in turn contacted the employer and discussed the situation, explaining to employer that they did not have to fire the person due to the lack of action from SSA. The employer accepted the explanation, allowed the worker to continue working and ran another E-Verify query. At that time the query returned as work authorized.

Mesa, AZ

On January 17, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR in the process of being hired for a position. The employer, an E-Verify user, processed the information through E-Verify, but received a DHS TNC. The employer provided the TNC notice to the applicant and told her that she could come to work as soon as she got the TNC fixed. When the worker contacted DHS, she learned that the employer had entered an incorrect birth date and had closed her case. The worker called OSC, and OSC called the employer to advise the employer that it could not take any adverse action against the applicant while she was attempting to fix the TNC, and apprised the employer of the date error. The employer ran another query with the correct information. After receiving confirmation that the worker was work-authorized, the employer called the worker in to start work.

West Orange, NJ

On February 1, 2013, a hotline caller sought assistance from OSC regarding an E-Verify SSA TNC indicating that the worker's U.S. citizenship could not be confirmed. The caller was unable to resolve the problem with SSA because he did not possess unexpired documentation establishing his U.S. citizenship. OSC guided the caller through the process of resolving this particular TNC through DHS. The TNC was immediately resolved and the caller was able to continue working for his new employer.

Hallandale Beach, FL

On February 7, 2013, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an individual to begin work after receiving an E-Verify TNC. When the individual's employer received a DHS TNC for the employee, it did not provide the individual with the appropriate E-Verify notices and instead instructed him to call DHS. The company also did not allow the individual to work during the pendency of the TNC. The worker first called DHS, then OSC. An OSC staffer contacted the company, and a human resources representative immediately resolved the TNC by correcting a data entry error and putting the worker on the schedule.

Albany, NY

On February 13, 2013 OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The worker was recently hired and her information was run through E-Verify. E-Verify generated an SSA TNC for the worker. The employer advised the worker to get the TNC resolved and told her that she could not continue working until the TNC was fixed. The worker called OSC, and OSC contacted the employer. OSC explained to the employer that it cannot take any adverse action against the worker while she's attempting to resolve the TNC. The employer stated that the worker will be allowed to return to work immediately and that it would pay two days of lost wages to the worker.

Sacramento, CA

On February 27, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The LPR received a DHS TNC in E-Verify after filling out Form I-9. The HR specialist advised her that she could not continue on the work schedule until she fixed the TNC. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted DHS E-Verify to provide language assistance for the worker in order to enable her to resolve the TNC with DHS. Then, OSC called the HR manager and explained that the employer could not take any adverse action against the employee while she was attempting to fix the TNC. HR staff accepted the explanation and stated that worker will remain on work schedule without interruption while resolving the TNC.

Houston, TX

On April 17, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a Permanent Resident. The employer ran the worker's data through E-Verify and received a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Tentative Non-Confirmation (TNC) notice for the worker. The TNC notice was signed electronically by the employer and worker. The employer told the worker to go to the Social Security Administration (SSA) office to take care of the problem, which the worker did two days later after the notice and returned with proof that he went to the SSA office. The employer told the worker that there was still a problem in E-Verify. The TNC turned into a Final Non-Confirmation (FNC), and the employer fired the worker. The worker called OSC, which contacted E-Verify Case Resolution Center and the case was resolved. OSC contacted the employer and discussed the fact that the employer had given the wrong instructions to the worker causing him to lose his job. Employer accepted the explanation and stated that worker will be returned to immediately to work and received $1,450 in lost wages.

Industry, CA

On April 22, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The employer ran the worker's data through E-Verify and received a DHS TNC for the worker. The worker stated that he spoke with E-Verify personnel and faxed a copy of his Permanent Resident Card. However, the TNC turned into an FNC and the worker was fired from the job. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the E-Verify hotline and was able to clear the FNC. The employer received notification from E-Verify and allowed the worker to return to work.

Chula Vista, CA

On April 23, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The employer ran the worker's data through E-Verify and received a DHS TNC for the worker. The worker speaks very limited English and explained that he called the E-Verify worker hotline in an attempt to resolve the discrepancy but had trouble communicating. The TNC turned into an FNC and the worker was fired from the job. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the E-Verify hotline and was able to clear the FNC. OSC contacted employer to advise the employer to expect a notice from E-Verify. The employer received notice from E-Verify and allowed the worker to return to work.

Jacksonville, FL

On April 24, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The employer ran the worker's data through E-Verify and received an SSA TNC for the worker. The worker visited the SSA office two days after she received the TNC notice and provided proof of her visit to the employer. However, the TNC turned into an FNC and the worker was fired from the job. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the employer and SSA personnel. An SSA representative acknowledged that the agency had not processed the E-Verify TNC and requested that the employer close the case and run another query. Another E-Verify query was submitted and the SSA representative was able to resolve the discrepancy within the required time period. The employer stated that worker would be returned to work immediately and paid $126 in lost wages.

Philadelphia, PA

On April 29, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a naturalized U.S. Citizen. The employer ran the worker's data through E-Verify and received an SSA TNC for the worker. The employer failed to provide a copy of the TNC to the worker; consequently, the worker did not know she had to visit SSA to resolve the TNC. The TNC turned into an FNC and the worker was fired from the job. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the employer and explained that worker never received the necessary E-Verify notice in order to fix the TNC. OSC spoke with E-Verify's case resolution staff and the matter was resolved. The employer stated that worker would be returned to work immediately with $145 in lost wages.

Champaign, IL

On May 7, 2013, two OSC attorneys assisted an L-visa holder in obtaining an employment authorized result from E-Verify so that she could return to her job. The worker received an SSA FNC after SSA did not update her E-Verify case. A subsequent E-Verify case was also unsuccessful, after which the employer terminated the worker (having followed all applicable E-Verify procedures). OSC contacted SSA's headquarters, which was able to update her case information and the employer then received an employment authorized result. The employer agreed to look for an opening and to bring back the worker accordingly.

San Fernando, CA

On May 7, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of an LPR. The worker's data was submitted through E-Verify and was told that he had a TNC to take care of and could continue to work until the issue was resolved. However, the employer did not provide the worker with a referral letter in order to take care of the TNC. The worker called OSC; in turn OSC contacted the employer and explained that an E-Verify referral letter was needed in order for the worker to resolve the TNC. OSC and the employer reviewed proper E-Verify procedures and the employer realized that it had been inputting information incorrectly into the E-Verify system. The employer ran another E-Verify query with the correct data for the worker and received a work authorized result. The employer allowed the worker to return to work immediately.

Atlanta, GA

On May 28, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. Citizen. The U.S. Citizen's I-9 information was submitted through E-Verify; however, the worker was told that she could not continue employment due to a TNC from E-Verify. The worker called OSC; in turn, OSC contacted the HR staff and explained that according to E-Verify procedures, the employer may not take any adverse action while the worker makes contact with DHS or SSA in an effort to resolve the TNC. The HR staff allowed the worker to return to work.

Snohomish, WA

On May 29, 2013, OSC received confirmation that an individual who called OSC's hotline after a wrongfully terminated worker had resumed work and received $550 in back pay. The worker, a nativeborn U.S. citizen, had received an E-Verify TNC after her employer incorrectly entered her Social Security number into E-Verify. The worker called OSC's hotline after her employer impermissibly fired her, even though the worker had not received an FNC. As part of the intervention, OSC called the employer and SSA to determine the source of the problem. As a result of the intervention, the employer stated that it would give further training to the manager responsible for terminating the worker, and that it would review its E-Verify policies.

Blacksburg, SC

On June 17, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. The U.S. citizen called OSC and explained that she had been suspended from work for almost one month because she had received a TNC as a result of an SSA TNC. Despite numerous visits to her local SSA office to resolve the TNC, the employer told her that she could not return to work until E-Verify confirmed her employment eligibility. OSC contacted the employer's headquarters, and explained that the employee had the right to work while contesting a TNC. The employer allowed the worker to return to work the next day.

Boca Raton, FL

On July 8, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of a U.S. citizen. When the worker was run through E-Verify and received a TNC, the employer advised her that she could no longer work due to the TNC. The worker called OSC, in turn OSC called the employer and explained that the worker must be allowed to continue with her employment while she contacts the appropriate agency to try to resolve her TNC. The employer allowed the worker to return to her job immediately and paid her $185 in back pay.

Gulfport, MS

On July 9, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker was run through E-Verify and when he received a DHS TNC, the employer advised him that he could no longer work due to the TNC. The worker called OSC, and OSC called the employer and explained that the worker must be allowed to continue with his employment while he contacts E-Verify. The employer allowed the worker to return to his job immediately.

Osceola, IA

On August 7, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The worker presented a valid driver's license and a Social Security Card upon hire. The employer, an E-Verify user, insisted that it needed to see the Permanent Resident Card in order to process the E-Verify query. The worker called the E-Verify employee line, in turn, she was referred to OSC. OSC called the employer and educated it on Form I-9 and E-Verify processes, explaining that the worker must list an "A" number in Section 1 of the Form I-9, but does not need to physically show the card. The employer allowed the worker to continue with her employment.

Marietta, GA

On September 4, 2013, an OSC attorney assisted a U.S. citizen in obtaining employment with a national retail chain. The worker called OSC's hotline and stated that during the E-Verify process, he received a TNC, which he contested. Nevertheless, the store did not allow him to work while the TNC was pending. OSC contacted the store's outside counsel and within five dates reinstated the caller and provided him with back pay.

Beaumont, TX

On September 9, 2013, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an individual to begin work after receiving an E-Verify TNC. When the individual's employer, a staffing company, received the E-Verify TNC, a human resources representative told the worker she could not begin work. An OSC staffer contacted the company, and the company immediately reinstated the worker and re-trained the human resources representative.

Miami, FL

On September 9, 2013, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention to save the job of a U.S. citizen. An HR manager at a national grocery chain that had recently hired the worker informed her that E-Verify had rejected her I-9 documents because of an "error" in the documents, and had suspended her from work. The worker contacted OSC's hotline, and an OSC attorney spoke with the HR manager that had assisted in the worker's E-Verify processing. The HR manager informed the OSC attorney that the "error" message did not pertain to the information that the worker submitted during the employment eligibility verification process. Rather, the system used for the background check had issued the "error" message, and the worker must have misunderstood the manager's explanation. The manager further informed the OSC attorney that the worker would be immediately reinstated because the background issue had been resolved. One of the senior HR managers for the company also contacted OSC to assure OSC that the worker had been re-instated immediately after OSC's contact with the company, and that the company's procedures during the employment eligibility verification process comported with the requirements of the anti-discrimination provision of the INA.

West Park, NY

On September 17, 2013, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR. The employer's HR representative attempted to enter the worker's data through E-Verify but couldn't finish the process; consequently, she told the worker that she was not able to enter the data and advised the worker that he needed to bring other documents besides his Permanent Resident Card. The worker did not have a List B document, and only had his Social Security card. The HR representative advised the worker that he lacked sufficient documentation. The worker called OSC, in turn OSC contacted the employer's corporate office and explained that there was no reason to reject the Permanent Resident card. The HR director agreed and allowed the worker to begin employment immediately. The E-Verify query was submitted and generated an "employment authorized" result.

Los Angeles, CA

On September 26, 2013, OSC learned that a successful telephone intervention was completed and that it saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen hired for a position in a bank. The employer, an E-Verify user, processed the worker's information through E-Verify in August 2013, but received an SSA TNC for the worker. The employer provided the TNC notice to the new worker and told her to go to SSA to get the TNC resolved. When the worker visited SSA, she learned that SSA records did not reflect that she had been naturalized more than 20 years ago. The worker reported to the employer that the issue was resolved. However, when the employer ran her through E-Verify again, an FNC was issued and she was fired. The worker called OSC, and OSC contacted SSA and the employer. SSA updated her record in E-Verify and OSC re-contacted the employer to state that the worker's SSA record was updated and she was authorized to work. The employer ran another E-Verify query and received confirmation through E-Verify that the worker was work-authorized, and called the worker back to work on September 16, 2013.

 

Fiscal Year 2012

New Orleans, LA

On October 6, 2011, OSC saved the job of a Haitian TPS beneficiary who was suspended due to an E-Verify TNC and prior erroneous "No Show" result. The employer, a hotel, ran the worker through E-Verify and eventually received a No-Show response, which appeared to be due to a break-down in communication about the TNC (the worker has limited English proficiency and the person who typically translates was not in the office the day the original TNC issued). The employer then ran a second query, using the original expiration date on the worker's EAD, instead of the new expiration date due to an automatic extension, and received another TNC. Based on the second TNC, the employer told the worker he could not return until he had resolved his case. OSC contacted the employer and the employer brought the worker back to work and paid the worker for the eight days of work he missed due to the TNC. The employer called E-Verify and obtained guidance on running a third query, which resulted in the worker clearing E-Verify.

Houston, TX

On November 15, 2011, OSC successfully completed a hotline intervention on behalf of a native-born U.S. citizen who was fired during the Employment Eligibility Verification ("Form I-9") and E-Verify processes for failing to produce an unexpired picture Identification Card ("ID"). To satisfy the Form I-9 document requirements, the worker produced a valid Voter Registration card and an unrestricted Social Security card. The employer participates in E-Verify, which requires identification documents to bear a photograph. The worker had recently moved from another state and had not had sufficient time to renew his photo ID in his prior state of residence. Furthermore, he was unable to obtain a Texas-issued photo ID because his birth certificate is in storage in his prior state of residence. After OSC consulted with USCIS personnel, OSC contacted the employer and advised the employer to run an E-Verify query using the information already provided on the Form I-9, and to make a notation that due to extraordinary circumstances, a picture ID would be produced at a later date. The worker was reinstated.

Long Beach, CA

On December 12, 2011, an OSC attorney performed a hotline intervention, saving the job of a work-authorized immigrant who had received a TNC after the employer entered a different version of the worker's name into E-Verify. Because there was no error with DHS or SSA data, the worker was unable to resolve the problem and E-Verify issued a FNC, which led the employer to suspend the worker. The OSC attorney alerted the employer to its error, and suggested that the employer run the worker through again with the correct full name. The employer ran the worker without issue, and the worker is now cleared to work. The worker did not lose any time off from his job, so no back pay was warranted.

Richmond, VA

On January 25, 2012, OSC completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen who had erroneously received an E-Verify FNC. The worker derived citizenship from his parents, who naturalized in 1987 when he was 12 years old. The worker does not possess a naturalization certificate and his U.S. passport expired in 1996. Because the worker's SSA records were never updated to reflect his U.S. citizenship status, E-Verify generated a TNC. When he visited SSA without current proof of citizenship status, SSA entered an incorrect disposition in E-V Star, failed to give the worker time to obtain documents by placing his E-Verify case in continuance, and an FNC ensued. Unfortunately the worker never began working because he misunderstood the instructions on the referral notice. The employer, an auto mechanic business, stated it was unable to contact the worker and thought he had abandoned the job so it terminated him. OSC requested DHS to provide the employer with a letter stating it should disregard the FNC. The employer decided to reinstate the worker and notified him of his new schedule.

Corpus Christi, TX

On February 24, 2012, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and allowed an LPR from Mexico to begin working at a "Hispanic supermarket" that misused E-Verify. When the supermarket corporate human resources representative opened an E-Verify case for the worker, she entered the wrong year of birth. A TNC ensued, and the supermarket manager told the worker she could not begin working until she resolved the TNC. OSC called the corporate office and explained the data that needed to be corrected, and informed the employer that it may not take adverse action against a worker who contests a TNC. The company called the worker to begin her employment immediately.

Dallas, TX

On March 21, 2012, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a United States citizen to return to work after her employer suspended her while she contested an E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmation notice. An OSC staffer contacted the company, which agreed to reinstate the employee immediately and pay back pay of approximately $400.

Lexington, KY

On March 29, 2012, OSC intervened to assist an LPR who had been suspended from his position at a temporary staffing company after receiving an erroneous E-Verify TNC. The company human resources department entered the worker's information incorrectly into E-Verify that resulted in a TNC, however the worker was not allowed to continue working while he resolved the issue. Further, E-Verify personnel advised the worker that the company had entered the employee's information incorrectly, which resulted in the TNC. The OSC attorney educated the company human resource employee on appropriate E-Verify procedures, and the human resource personnel immediately corrected the issue and the employee resumed his job without missing any days of work.

Raleigh, VA

On April 18, 2012, an OSC attorney performed an intervention on behalf of a LPR who received a TNC after his employer ran him through E-Verify. Due to an error on the Form I-9, the employer had entered the individual into E-Verify as a U.S. citizen. The OSC attorney called the employer and the employer decided to correctly run the worker through as a LPR. The worker did not have any further difficulties.

Eagle Pass, TX

On June 11, 2012, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a LPR to start work after receiving an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC) notice. The company prevented the employee from starting work when it received a DHS TNC for the employee. An OSC staffer contacted the company and explained that pursuant to E-Verify rules, the employee must be allowed to continue working while contesting a TNC. The company contacted the individual and permitted her to begin working immediately.

Farmington, NM

On June 20, 2012, OSC successfully saved the job of an LPR who received an E-Verify Final Nonconfirmation. As a result of improper Form I-9 procedures in violation of company policy, the company's human resource representative erroneously assumed the worker was a U.S. citizen, and ran the E-Verify query with incorrect information. The worker was reinstated and awarded back pay for the loss of employment since June 6.

Salisbury, MD

On July 5, 2012, OSC intervened on behalf of a LPR from Haiti and saved her job. The employee received a tentative non-confirmation ("TNC") from E-Verify when she started work. Though the employer explained the situation to her, and advised her to report to the local Social Security office to address the TNC, she misunderstood the employer and contacted OSC on its hotline for fear of losing her job. Apparently, the employee recently married, and had not changed her name with the Social Security Administration. OSC contacted the employer, and it was determined the proper E-Verify procedure had been followed. However, there appeared to be some miscommunication, because the employee was a limited English speaker. The employer provided the assistance of a Creole speaker, and the E-Verify procedure was fully explained to the employee in the Creole language. The matter was later resolved at the Social Security office, and the employee never lost any time at work.

Sterling, VA

On July 11, 2012, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a lawful permanent resident to begin work after a company delayed his start date due to an E-Verify issue. When hired, the employee presented an unexpired Resident Alien card (the former version of the Permanent Resident card), an unexpired driver's license, and an unrestricted Social Security card. The company's human resources representative believed she needed to use the employee's Resident Alien card to run the E-Verify query and failed to finish the query when she could not find a document number on the card. An OSC staffer contacted the company in a conference call with E-Verify and both offices explained that pursuant to E-Verify rules, the employee must be allowed to work even if the employer is having difficulty understanding how to use the E-Verify system. The company called the employee to work immediately and paid back pay of approximately $460 for the days the employee was not allowed to work.

Marietta, GA

On July 17, 2012, OSC saved the job (a paid pharmaceutical internship) of a Chinese pharmaceutical student whose university participates with employers offering educational internships in the pharmaceutical industry. During the E-Verify process the student received a TNC and was never told about it until the day he called OSC about two weeks later. When OSC called the employer, the employer explained that another employee at another location began the E-Verify process and did not complete it and that it was trying to rectify the problem. OSC explained the process by which the employer would have to follow-up to close out the initial query and begin a new query, the requirement to keep the intern on the job during the E-Verify process, and explained that the intern had lost wages for the time he was suspended as a result of the TNC. The employer agreed to comply with OSC's instructions regarding the E-Verify process, and decided to keep the employee on the job and reimburse him for his lost wages.\

Fayetteville, AR

On September 17, 2012, OSC, working with USCIS and SSA, successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing an F-1 visa student worker to return to work after being fired due to an erroneous E-Verify SSA FNC. The worker, whose first name on her foreign passport, Form I-20, and Social Security card is entered as "FNU" (Family Name Unknown), received an SSA TNC when the employer ran her through E-Verify by entering a first name. The worker visited her local SSA office, which instructed the worker to tell the employer to invalidate the E-Verify query and run it again using the worker's name exactly as it is written on her employment documents. When the employer failed to do this, the E-Verify system generated an SSA FNC and the company fired the worker. The worker contacted OSC's hotline, and an OSC staff member worked with USCIS and SSA to reinstate the worker and to ensure that the employer corrected the E-Verify query. The company also paid back pay to the worker in the amount of approximately $385.

 

Fiscal Year 2011

Chicago, IL

On October 14, 2010, OSC completed a hotline intervention, saving the job of a U.S. citizen.  The worker was run through E-Verify and received an SSA TNC because his name did not match the name in SSA’s records.  The worker visited SSA to explain that the SSA records incorrectly spelled his last name.  Unfortunately, the worker did not have documentation showing the correct spelling of his name, and SSA did not put the case into continuance to await the documentation.  The worker eventually received an erroneous FNC and was suspended by his employer.  We reached out to SSA, which contacted the employer and explained how the employer could run a new case for the worker.  The employer put the worker back to work and ran a new E-Verify case for him.  We also served as a liaison between the worker and SSA.  The worker will continue to follow up with SSA, according to SSA’s directions, and provide documentation establishing the correct spelling of his last name once it becomes available.

Indianapolis, IN

On October 19, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention, saving the job of a lawful permanent resident.  The employer’s E-Verify query resulted in a TNC because the employer had transcribed the worker’s “A” number incorrectly from the I-9 form.  The employer failed to check whether it had typed any information incorrectly and directed the worker to report to “Immigration” rather than to call the E-Verify phone number.  When the worker pointed out to the employer that the “A” number had been entered incorrectly, the employer refused to close the case and re-run the worker through E-Verify.  By the time the worker reported to USCIS, the employer had received a “no show” response from DHS and terminated the worker.  OSC contacted the employer and pointed out the error in the “A” number.  The employer at first refused to reinstate the worker, asserting that it had no duty to do so because the employee had failed to report to DHS on time.  The OSC attorney submitted a law enforcement request to DHS and arranged for DHS to fax a third step letter to the employer, informing the employer that the worker was work-authorized.  The employer reinstated the worker the next day. 

Meridian, ID

On October 27, 2010, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a lawful permanent resident.  The worker was not hired after filling out the I-9 form and identifying himself as a lawful permanent resident, because his Permanent Resident Card (I-551) had expired.  The HR representative advised the worker she could not accept an expired I-551 because E-Verify would issue a TNC.  When the worker presented his unrestricted Social Security card and driver’s license, the employer told him she could not enter those documents into E-Verify either, unless he checked the “U.S. citizen” box on the I-9 form.  OSC advised the employer that the E-Verify query should be run with the list B and C documents, and the expired I-551 would not affect the E-Verify query.  The employer submitted the E-Verify query and received an employment authorized result.

Long Island, NY

On November 1, 2010, OSC completed a telephone intervention that resulted in the payment of $1,660 in back pay to a lawful permanent resident whose employer did not properly use the E-Verify system.  The employer first failed to provide the worker with a referral letter containing instructions for resolving the TNC.  Since the worker did not know how to resolve the TNC, an FNC issued based on his failure to contact DHS within the requisite time frame.  The employer ran several more E-Verify queries and suspended the worker because his Permanent Resident Card had expired.  OSC explained to counsel for the employer that the employee remained authorized to work despite the expiration of his Permanent Resident Card and that the worker had presented sufficient proof of his work authorization.  The employer allowed the employee to return to work after one week and eventually agreed to pay back pay as well. 

Escondido, CA

On November 10, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and allowed an LPR from Mexico to begin his employment at an apartment management company.  The employer’s HR functions are managed by an outsourcing firm.  That firm refused to accept the worker’s California I.D. card and unrestricted Social Security card as proof of his identity and work authorization.  The employer stated that an ICE agent informed her she would not be able to run non-citizen employees through E-Verify unless they had current DHS documents, because E-Verify requires a card number as well as an alien number.  We explained that all workers have the right to choose which documents to present for I-9 purposes, and it could be an unfair documentary practice (document abuse) to reject the documents this worker presented.  We also walked the employer through the initial E-Verify screens so she could see that E-Verify permits permanent residents to present documents other than permanent resident cards for the I-9 form.  The employer ran the worker’s information in E-Verify and now he has begun his new job. 

Orlando, FL

On November 24, 2010, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention, permitting a worker who had received a TNC and then a “no show” FNC to return to work.  The worker had received a DHS TNC because she had typed her A-number incorrectly into E-Verify and because the employer had recorded incorrect documents in the Form I-9 process.  The worker called E-Verify, but not within the specified eight-day period.  The employer received a “no show” response in E-Verify and terminated the employee, believing that the employee was not work authorized because of the “no show” and because she listed a foreign address on her I-9 form.  E-Verify told her that she was work authorized and to contact OSC.  We contacted corporate counsel for the employer and educated them about the Form I-9 process.  The employer agreed immediately to contact the worker, redo her I-9 form, and to re-run the employee through E-Verify.  The employee was then permitted to return to work. 

Baton Rouge, LA

On December 20, 2010, an OSC successfully intervened on behalf of a Venezuelan national who is a graduate student with Optional Practical Training (OPT) work authorization. The student’s university offered him a job, but misread the OPT rules to require that the student be run through E‐Verify in order to be hired. At the same time, the university was reluctant to run an E‐Verify query for the student, since it does not submit E‐Verify queries for anyone else in the department. We called the E‐Verify hotline with the worker and received confirmation that OPT recipients have to work for employers who use E‐Verify, but that the employer does not have to run those individuals through E‐Verify if that is not a requirement for the particular position (i.e., if the position is not related to a federal contract). We then explained this to the university, which then agreed to allow the student to start work.

Pittsburg, CA

On January 18, 2011, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of a naturalized citizen who works for a national hospital chain.  The worker received two TNCs, one FNC, and one confirmation of work authorization amongst the many E-Verify queries the employer had run for him.   As a result, the employer told the worker he could no longer work.  We contacted the employer and educated it about the proper use of E-Verify and the correct way to handle TNCs.  The worker returned to work two days later. 

Fresno, CA

On January 18, 2011, in cooperation with representatives of DHS and SSA, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention that resulted in job reinstatement for a naturalized U.S. citizen after E-Verify issued an erroneous SSA FNC.  The worker, originally from Nigeria, arrived in the U.S. as a permanent resident in 1976 and naturalized in 1993.  Prior to becoming a U.S. citizen, she divorced her husband and resumed the use of her maiden name.  She updated her name on file with SSA when she divorced but did not update her status with SSA after she became a U.S. citizen.   Nor did the former INS update its records in 1993 to reflect her naturalization.

The worker’s employer is a federal contractor that has opted to run all its current employees, including the worker, in E-Verify.  When the worker received an SSA TNC, she visited SSA, which put her case in pending status for a month while the worker obtained her naturalization certificate.  Although SSA utilized SAVE to check whether the worker’s naturalization certificate was authentic, SSA failed to extend the pending period and failed to submit a photocopy of the naturalization certificate when SAVE required it.  Due to these SSA errors, the case became an FNC, and the employer placed the worker on unpaid administrative leave. 

After OSC brought the matter to DHS’s attention, it notified the employer that it should disregard the FNC and allow the worker to return to work.  SSA has also updated its records to reflect that the worker is a U.S. citizen.

Atlanta, GA

On January 21, 2011, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and saved the job of an F-1 Student.  As a result of running the student’s information through E-Verify, the employer, a major hospital, received a DHS TNC, but did not know how to proceed from there.  The worker called OSC to request assistance in resolving the issue. OSC determined that the employer had entered incorrect information in E-Verify.  OSC instructed the employer on how to close the case, invalidate the query, and start a new one.  A second query was initiated, resulting in an “Employment Authorized” status.  The worker was allowed to stay on the job.

Half Moon Bay, CA

On January 31, 2011, OSC completed a successful intervention to stop a hotel in California from re-running existing employees through E-Verify and from conducting a selective Form I-9 audit.   On January 13, 2011, a worker called the OSC hotline and reported that the hotel was conducting a selective Form I-9 audit.  The hotel was asking certain workers for certain documents and other workers for other documents.  The worker reported that the hotel was also running existing employees through E-Verify as part of that audit.  OSC contacted corporate counsel and explained its concerns about the audit and the hotel’s use of E-Verify.  The corporate office was not aware that the hotel had signed up for E-Verify, investigated the matter, and confirmed to OSC that the hotel, as part of the audit, had started running existing employees through E-Verify.  In response to OSC’s phone calls, the hotel chain indicated that it will: (1) immediately halt the current Form I-9 audit taking place at the hotel; (2) explain to workers the purpose of the Form I-9 audit and the hotel’s prior misuse of E-Verify; (3) conduct a Form I-9 audit at the corporate offices using the services of a third party or high level corporate HR officials; (4) include a review of potential over-documentation issues in the audit; (5) immediately stop running existing workers through E-Verify and take no adverse action any worker who was improperly run through E-Verify; and (6) conduct training for all HR representatives at the hotel on the Form I-9 process and on E-Verify.  The hotel chain also indicated that it will inform OSC on its progress.

Brentwood, CA

On February 4, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a LPR, originally from Bolivia, who received an FNC from E-Verify.  The employer is a federal contractor that is using E-Verify for all of its current employees.  The employer uses the TALX, a large, electronic personnel services provider, to manage its E-Verify queries.  The name field in Section 1 of the electronic TALX I-9 Form was pre-populated with the worker’s maiden name, which resulted in a TNC.  The worker was not provided a TNC referral notice, and in January, 2011, she was suspended without pay after E-Verify issued an FNC.   The worker called USCIS, which in turn called the employer to advise it to invalidate the first query and run a new query.  The employer refused, stating that the worker had to present new identity and work authorization documents.  Because the worker’s PRC and Social Security card had been stolen and Social Security would not issue a new card without current documents from USCIS, we advised the worker to obtain a temporary document evidencing her permanent residency.  We also convinced the employer to run a new query, which resulted in an “employment authorized” response and the worker returning to the job. 

Nampa, ID

On March 15, 2011, OSC intervened to save the job of an LPR in a food services company.  The employer submitted an E-Verify query that resulted in a DHS TNC, because the employer submitted the worker’s married name instead of the double surname on her Permanent Resident card.  The employer instructed the worker to visit the nearest USCIS office rather than provide her with the E-Verify referral letter explaining the resolution process.  When the worker visited USCIS twice, on both occasions she was told there was nothing wrong with her status.  However, because she was not instructed to call E-Verify, an FNC resulted and the employer terminated the worker.  OSC requested E-Verify to issue a letter instructing the employer to disregard the FNC, and the worker is returning to her job.

Plano, TX 

On March 22, 2011, OSC successfully intervened to educate an employer on the proper use of E-Verify and to assist an LPR receive payment for work he had performed.  The employer is a cafeteria that had attempted to run multiple E-Verify queries for the worker with several different name combinations (the worker has two first names and two surnames), but all resulted in TNCs.  The employer then suspended the worker and refused to pay him for the three days he had worked prior to the suspension.  OSC explained that employers may not take adverse action against workers who contest TNCs, and that workers must be paid for their work regardless of their E-Verify TNC status.  The employer stated that it would pay the worker for time worked.  Although the employer was also willing to permit the worker to return to work, the worker had already found alternate employment.

Phoenix, AZ 

On April 7, 2011, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a U.S. citizen who works for a large retail company.  The worker accidentally gave the company the Social Security number of his infant son, who shares the same name.  The worker was run through
E-Verify and received an SSA TNC, and, although the worker attempted to resolve the issue at the SSA office, a FNC was issued.  We called the employer to explain the mix-up and the employer consented to run the worker through E-Verify again with the correct number, an action it had been unwilling to take before the intervention.  The worker has now returned to his job.  

Tualatin, OR

On April 8, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and helped prevent an E-Verify FNC from issuing.  The worker, a Micronesian citizen admitted as a non-immigrant under the Compact of Free Association between the U.S. and the Federated States of Micronesia, received a TNC because she had not yet updated her records at SSA to reflect her married name.  The SSA field office representative told her it would take some time for the SSA record to be updated because the USCIS SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) program required SSA to send in a copy of her immigration documents.  We checked SSA headquarters to determine whether SSA had suspended the case in E-Verify to prevent a FNC from issuing after 10 days.  Since the field office had not suspended the case, we reached out to the SSA field office to explain that the case was at the risk of becoming a FNC.  The manager updated the system to suspend the case, and the worker has continued to work. 

Jensen Beach, IN

On April 11, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR from Nicaragua.  The employer, an aviation staffing company, provided the worker with an E-Verify TNC notice, which the worker contested.  The employer then provided the worker with a referral notice, along with a map with step-by-step directions to the nearest SSA field office.  The worker took the referral notice to SSA, and afterword returned the referral notice to the employer, along with a SSA printout confirming that his name and Social Security number match.  Since the E-Verify referral was actually a referral to DHS, after eight days passed a FNC issued and the worker was terminated from his position.  We called the employer to suggest that even though the worker was provided with the correct referral letter, the employer may have confused the worker when it verbally instructed him and gave him printed driving directions to visit SSA.  The employer decided to reinstate the worker and initiate a new query in E-Verify. 

Las Vegas, NV

On June 20, 2011, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a U.S. Citizen.  The worker presented an unexpired passport during the employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) process. The employer apparently mis-entered information from the I-9 form into E-Verify, causing the system to issue a TNC.  The worker was dismissed immediately and told that she needed to get the TNC resolved before she could be re-hired.  After the worker contacted OSC, an OSC investigator called the employer and went over E-Verify procedures.  It was determined that the employer had erroneously entered information from the I-9 form, causing the system to generate a TNC.  Furthermore, the employer did not follow proper procedures by providing the worker with a TNC referral letter and allowing her 8 federal work days to resolve the issue.  After the OSC investigator contacted the employer to explain proper E-Verify procedures, the employer correctly re-entered information from the I-9 form into the E-Verify system and the worker was rehired immediately.

Cedar Rapids, IA

On June 22, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia who received an E-Verify FNC.  Her employer, a home health services agency, called OSC for assistance in completing an I-9 form and entering an E-Verify query, because the worker’s name was spelled three different ways on three separate documents.  OSC provided the employer with USCIS guidance on documents with misspelled names, and the employer decided to enter the name listed on the worker’s Social Security card into E-Verify.  A DHS TNC resulted and the employer called OSC again.  OSC assisted the employer and the worker through a representative on the DHS worker hotline, and the employer faxed a copy of the worker’s documents to DHS.  Eight days later, a DHS no-show and FNC issued, as if the worker had never called DHS or faxed her documents.  The employer called OSC again, and DHS overrode the FNC with a written notice called “Employment Eligibility Verification Status Update,” also known as a “third step letter.”  This process took approximately one week, because USCIS needed additional documents from the worker.  During this time, on advice from the employer's counsel, the employer suspended the worker based on the FNC, so the worker missed approximately six days of work due to the error. 

Brooklyn, NY

On June 28, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR.  At the time of hire, the worker presented a Permanent Resident Card (also known as a “green card” or a Form I-551) that was issued in 1985.  Green cards from that year do not bear an expiration date and have alien numbers comprised of only eight digits.  The employer, a healthcare provider, subsequently received a TNC upon submitting an E-Verify query.   The employer told the worker that she needed to obtain a new green card before she could resume work, specifically one that shows a future expiration date and an alien number containing nine digits in order to complete the E-Verify screen that has space for nine digits. OSC contacted the human resources director to discuss proper E-Verify procedures and actions which might constitute document abuse in violation of the anti-discrimination provision. Specifically, OSC explained that an employer cannot request a particular document for I-9 purposes, that the refugee’s “green card” is still valid, and that an employer may not take any adverse action against a worker while the worker attempts to resolve a TNC.  Furthermore, OSC explained that the employer may insert a leading “zero” before the eight digit alien number in order to complete the E-Verify field.  The employer decided to call the worker back to work immediately. 

Phoenix, AZ

On September 7, 2011, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR originally from Mexico. The employer, a convenience store, participates in E‐Verify. When EVerify issued a TNC for the worker, the employer incorrectly told the worker he could not begin working until he resolved his E‐Verify issue. Furthermore, the employer did not provide the worker with a referral notice as required by the E‐Verify MOU. The worker called OSC, and we explained to the employer that it must give workers the opportunity to contest a TNC, and may not take adverse action against a worker who chooses to contest a TNC, unless or until the system generates an FNC. The employer immediately contacted the worker and permitted him to begin working.

Chandler, AZ

On September 7, 2011, OSC successfully completed a hotline intervention, ensuring that a U.S. citizen worker was reinstated to her position. The employee contacted OSC to report that she was terminated because she received an E‐Verify TNC, but that the employer never gave her a chance to contest the TNC. The employer agreed to reinstate the worker and correct its E‐Verify practices by taking no adverse action against employees while they are in the process of contesting TNCs.

 

Fiscal Year 2010

Newberry, SC

On October 7, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and assisted an LPR from Mexico to begin work at a meat processing plant.  The employer routinely runs E-Verify queries on new hires prior to their first day of work.  The worker’s permanent resident card showed his first name as “J” while his Social Security card showed his first name as “Roberto,” so he was issued an SSA notice of tentative nonconfirmation (TNC).  He contested the TNC and visited the Social Security office to correct his name in SSA’s records.  Over two weeks later, the employer continued to refuse to permit him to begin work.  We called the employer and USCIS and learned E-Verify had issued a message stating “Initiate New Query.”  While USCIS could not explain the meaning of this message, it agreed to call the employer and advise it to invalidate the first query and run a second query identical to the first one.  We also explained to the employer that it may not postpone employee start dates, or take any adverse action against an employee who contests a TNC.  The employer stated the delay in this employee’s case was due to other background tests and not his E-verify status.  The employee is scheduled for the next available orientation.

Chicago, IL

On October 21, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and assisted a worker in obtaining employment.  A worker called OSC because he received an erroneous final nonconfirmation (FNC) from his new employer, who uses E-Verify.  The worker, a U.S. citizen, presented a driver’s license and Social Security card when he completed the Form I-9, but when his information was submitted to E-Verify he received a tentative nonconfirmation (TNC).  The worker contested the TNC and received a referral to the Social Security Administration to correct the information in his record.  When the worker subsequently received an FNC, he called OSC to ask why he had received an FNC even though he contested the TNC, is a U.S. citizen, and has a valid passport and Social Security card.  We assisted the worker in contacting the Social Security Administration.  The worker was told that as a derived citizen, who became a U.S. citizen while a child by virtue of his parents’ naturalized citizenship status, his Social Security record had never been updated to reflect that he is a U.S. citizen.  The worker updated his record at the Social Security Administration and is now working.

Black Creek, GA

On October 21, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a worker with lawful permanent resident status.  The worker received a tentative non-confirmation of work authorization (TNC) from E-Verify, the electronic employment eligibility system administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  The worker was told by the local Social Security Administration (SSA) office that it would not update her information in the SSA database until she obtained a new permanent resident card because the version that the worker possesses bears no expiration date.  The employer contacted OSC because it was concerned about receiving an E-Verify erroneous final non-confirmation if the worker is unable to obtain a new I-551 within the time permitted.  OSC explained that E-Verify allows employers to select to resolve a final non-confirmation without terminating the employee by selecting the "Employee Not Terminated" box in the "Resolve Options" section, and we suggested that the employer contact DHS for further guidance. The employer chose not to terminate the worker.

Charlotte, NC

On October 23, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR.  The staffing agency for which the LPR worked submitted the employee's information to E-Verify using an incorrect alien number, which caused E-Verify to issue a TNC. The employee contacted DHS to resolve the discrepancy, and then presented evidence to the employer of the correct alien number.  However, the employer failed to invalidate the faulty query in the E-Verify system, resulting in a final nonconfirmation for the employee, which led to her termination.  When OSC contacted the staffing agency, it promptly reassigned the employee and initiated a new query with E-Verify using the correct alien number.  The staffing agency also indicated that it would pay the employee back pay for the time she was off work.

Atlanta, GA

On October 27, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen.  The worker received an E-Verify TNC and was told that she could not return to work until the TNC was resolved.  She was also told that she would not lose any pay during this time.  We explained to the employer that the E-Verify user agreement states that an employer may not take any adverse action against an employee based unless the program issues a final non-confirmation.  The employer decided to allow the employee to return to work.

Winston-Salem, NC

On November 6, 2009, an OSC attorney successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a newly-naturalized U.S. citizen. The U.S. citizen was hired by a national electronics retailer and was not allowed to start work after his employer received a tentative non-confirmation (TNC) from E-Verify, the electronic employment eligibility verification system administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The OSC attorney contacted the employer and informed the employer that it must allow the U.S. citizen time to correct the TNC in accordance with E-Verify rules, and to allow the worker to continue to work while resolving the TNC.  The employer allowed the U.S. citizen to continue to work while resolving the TNC.

Rochester, MN

On November 10, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen who was terminated after her employer, an electronics manufacturer, received an erroneous E-Verify final non-confirmation (FNC).  E-Verify first issued a tentative non-confirmation (TNC) because Social Security records still showed the worker was a lawful permanent resident (LPR), not a U.S. citizen (she naturalized nearly 20 years ago).  The worker contested the TNC and her employer then issued a referral letter.  The referral letter instructed her to visit her local SSA office with proof of her citizenship status within eight federal work days.  She immediately visited her local SSA office with her naturalization certificate, but at that time the SSA office updated neither its records system nor the E-Verify system to reflect that the worker had presented proof of U.S. citizenship.  As a result, the FNC was issued and the worker's employment was terminated.  The worker was afraid she had lost her legal status to remain in the U.S., as she was being told she was ineligible to work and feared she would next be deported to her country of origin (Vietnam).  She consulted an attorney who called OSC.  OSC made numerous phone calls to various officials at E-Verify and DHS faxed a letter to the employer saying the FNC was erroneous.  The employer allowed the worker to return to her job. The worker’s SSA records were subsequently corrected.

Cincinnati, OH

On November 10, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen whose employer received an erroneous FNC via E-Verify.  The worker was adopted at age three and naturalized soon thereafter.  As a child, she did not inform the Social Security Administration that she had naturalized.  When she visited SSA with her E-Verify referral letter, the SSA official informed her he was unable to update her record to reflect that she is a U.S. citizen, and he needed to mail copies of all her documents to the SSA office in Los Angeles.  He told her it would take 30 to 45 days for her record to be updated.  E-Verify issued a FNC after 10 days because the SSA official neglected to place the worker's E-Verify case in continuance, as he is required to do in such situations.  OSC set up a conference call with the worker, employer and the E-Verify Customer Contact Operations Branch, in order to allow E-Verify to explain to the employer that the FNC was erroneous.  The employee was allowed to return to work.  The worker’s SSA records were subsequently corrected.

Norfolk, VA

On December 18, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention, enabling a U.S. citizen to continue working.  The worker called OSC concerned that her employer was not properly following proper procedures in using E-Verify, the electronic employment eligibility verification system administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  The employer, a federal contractor, ran existing employees through E-Verify and those employees who received tentative nonconfirmations (TNCs) were not given the option of contesting the TNC, did not receive referral notices, and were told that they could not continue working.  After OSC spoke with the employer, the employer indicated it would allow the employees to return to work, provided them with their TNCs, allowed them to contest the TNCs, and gave them referral notices if they chose to contest the TNCs.  The U.S. citizen worker is still working.

Mesquite, TX

On December 23, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention, enabling a lawful permanent resident to continue working.  An employer who uses E-Verify called OSC because it received an E-Verify status report that an employee who had chosen to contest a DHS TNC was a DHS No-Show.  The employer was concerned because it knew that the employee had called DHS to resolve the TNC.  With OSC’s assistance, communications were initiated between the employer and DHS, the employee’s work authorization was verified, and the employee continues to work.

Oakland, CA

On January 21, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a lawful permanent resident (LPR) to be reinstated.  The worker’s employer, a federal contractor, asked the LPR to fill out a new Form I-9 before verifying the employee’s information through E-Verify, an electronic employment eligibility verification system administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  When the LPR filled out the new Form I-9, she mistakenly checked the box for “citizen or national of the United States.”  The E-Verify query resulted in a Social Security Administration (SSA) tentative non-confirmation (TNC).  The employer subsequently received a final non-confirmation from E-Verify and terminated the employee.  After OSC pointed out the mistake to the employer, the employer re-ran the employee through E-Verify as a lawful permanent resident.  The new E-Verify query resulted in confirmation and reinstatement of the employee.

Tulsa, OK

On January 23, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a worker with lawful permanent resident status, whose employer uses E-Verify, the electronic employment eligibility verification process administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  The worker received an E-Verify Social Security Administration (SSA) tentative non-confirmation (TNC) after he incorrectly completed the Form I-9.  The worker told OSC that he knew he had made a mistake, but did not know how to correct it.  We explained to the worker how to correctly complete the Form I-9 and contacted the employer to ask if it would allow the worker to correct his mistake on the Form I-9.  The employer allowed the worker to correct his mistake and instituted a new E-Verify query based on the correct information.  

Wheaton, IL

On January 26, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident.  The employer, a cable installer, participates in E-Verify.  The LPR, who immigrated from England as a child but has not yet naturalized, mistakenly noted that he was a citizen on his Form I-9.  Consequently, E-Verify issued a TNC.  The worker complained that his manager terminated his employment because he had failed to contest the TNC on the day, but came in to sign it on the following day.  Approximately three weeks later, the worker received the TNC via certified mail from the employer’s corporate headquarters, along with a letter stating he needed to contest and return the TNC, or else the company would “accept the non receipt as a voluntary resignation of your position.”  After speaking to OSC, the worker decided to contest the TNC.  OSC also spoke to the employer via counsel to ensure that the employer is aware of proper E-Verify procedures.  The employer subsequently paid the LPR for the six weeks he was not allowed to work following receipt of the TNC and permitted him to start work.

Duluth, GA

On January 27, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention enabling a U.S. citizen employee to begin training for her position.  During the E-Verify process, the employee received a TNC.  The employee went to the Social Security Administration (SSA) and learned that she needed to produce a marriage certificate since she never notified SSA of her name change.  One week after she went to the SSA, the E-Verify system had not yet updated her information.  During the waiting period from the time that the employee receives a TNC until the E-Verify system acknowledged the SSA update, the employee was not being allowed to participate in the required two-week training prior to beginning work.  OSC contacted the employer and explained that the delay in training constitutes an adverse action against the employee.  As a result, the employer called the employee to report to her training and stated that in the future it will not delay training or an employment start date for employees who receive a TNC.

Seattle, WA

On January 29, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of an Egyptian national and refugee.  The refugee was hired to work for a fast food chain restaurant but was not allowed to start work after receiving a tentative non-confirmation (TNC) from E-Verify – an electronic employment eligibility verification program administered by the Department of Homeland Security.  The TNC was the result of the restaurant manager misspelling the refugee’s first name when the manager submitted the E-Verify query.  OSC contacted the employer’s counsel to inform him about the error and to explain that the employer must allow the refugee time to correct the TNC; additionally, the employer must allow the refugee to remain employed while resolving the TNC.  The TNC was resolved, and the refugee was allowed to work.

Houston, TX

On January 29, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and helped a U.S. citizen return to work.  After the worker received and contested a TNC in E-Verify, his employer did not allow him to return to work and did not issue a referral notice to the Social Security Administration, in contravention of E-Verify procedures.  We contacted the employer to explain how to initiate a referral and that E-Verify rules provide that no adverse action may be taken against an employee who is attempting to resolve a TNC.  The employer issued the referral notice and scheduled the employee for training.

Seattle, WA

On February 4, 2010, OSC successfully completed two telephone interventions and helped two national fast food restaurant employees to continue working.  Both workers – a permanent resident from Iran and a U.S. citizen from Guam – received TNCs from E-Verify based on data entry errors.  Their store managers told them to “resolve their E-Verify issues” or they would not be able to keep working.  We called the store managers and regional payroll office to explain that, under proper E-Verify procedures, the queries should be invalidated because they contain data entry errors and would become erroneous final non-confirmations.  The employer invalidated the queries and then submitted new, correct queries.  As a result, E-Verify generated “employment authorized” results for both employees.

Washington, DC

On February 12, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and helped a worker on a student visa get paid for time that he worked.  The employer, a university bookstore, is a participant in the E-Verify program.  The worker called OSC’s hotline to report that after he had worked for the three days, he was told that E-Verify had issued a TNC for him.  The employer also told him that he could not be paid for the three days that he had worked until he resolved the problem with SSA.  OSC contacted the employer and explained the procedure prescribed by the E-Verify program for notifying employees of a TNC.  The employee was paid for the time that he had worked, and the employer retrained the managers responsible for running E-Verify queries. 

Mercer, NJ

On February 12, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and ensured that a worker on a student visa was paid for the time that he should have been allowed to work.  The worker was hired for a temporary position at a University bookstore that participates in the E-Verify program.  The worker’s information was run through E-Verify, and a TNC was generated.  When E-Verify issued the TNC, the worker noticed that the alien number he had provided on his Form I-9, which was subsequently entered into E-Verify, was incorrect and therefore likely leading to the TNC.  The employer told the worker that he could not begin working until he had resolved the E-Verify issue.  We explained to the employer that under E-Verify rules, employees who are contesting a TNC must be allowed to continue working during while they are contesting the TNC.  The employer indicated it would retrain the managers responsible for running E-Verify queries, and the worker was paid for the time that he would have been employed by the bookstore.

East Providence, RI

On February 12, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention that saved the job of a U.S. citizen.  The employer uses E-Verify, the electronic employment eligibility verification system administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  Although the employer has federal government contracts, it was relying on a designated agent to run its E-Verify queries, and DHS’ records did not reflect the employer’s status as a “federal contractor.”  (Only E-Verify enrollees that have registered as “federal contractors” are permitted to run current employees through E-Verify.)  Through its designated agent, the employer verified the employee, who had been working for the employer since November 2001.  E-Verify generated a Social Security Administration (SSA) tentative nonconfirmation (TNC) for the employee, and the employee contested the TNC.  Although the employee visited SSA in a timely fashion, SSA failed to properly extend the time for resolving the TNC.  Thus, E-Verify generated a final nonconfirmation (FNC), resulting in the employer terminating the employee.  OSC contacted the employer’s counsel to alert it to the problem.  The employer immediately rehired the employee and restored his lost benefits and pay.  The employer indicated it would also amend its E-Verify registration to reflect its federal contractor status. 

Fairfield, CA

On February 16, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident originally from Mexico. Without consulting with the worker, the employer, a staffing agency that participates in E-Verify, made an entry in the E-Verify system indicating that the worker did not wish to contest her TNC.  OSC contacted the employer’s compliance officer who indicated that the staffing agency’s branch office would allow the worker to contest her TNC and continue working.  However, the employer did not print a referral letter containing instructions for contacting the DHS status verifier by phone.  Instead, the employer mistakenly instructed the worker to visit the local USCIS office.  Since the worker did not have the proper instructions about how to resolve the TNC, E-Verify generated a final non-confirmation based on a “DHS no show,” and the employer terminated the worker.  Although DHS has a procedure whereby it overrides erroneous final non-confirmations via a letter called a “third-step letter,” in this case DHS called the employer’s compliance officer to inform him that the worker is authorized to work.  The worker now shows as “employment authorized” in the staffing agency’s database and is awaiting a work assignment.

Chicago, IL

On March 1, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen who received an E-Verify Final Non-confirmation (FNC).  The employer is running E-Verify queries on all of its current employees because it has a contract with a federal agency that requires the use of E-Verify.  When the human resources representative gave the worker the Referral letter (the worker had changed her name and gender and had not yet updated her records with SSA), she instructed the worker to provide the company with documents evidencing that SSA was updating its records within 30 days.  The worker did not read the referral letter, so she did not realize she actually had only 8 federal work days to visit the SSA; as a result, the E-Verify system issued an FNC response, and the worker was suspended.  OSC spoke to counsel for the company and explained that if an employer knows that an employee is work authorized, it may choose to retain the employee; the only requirement is that the employer notify DHS that it is retaining the employee.  Counsel was reluctant to allow the worker to return to work because he believed continuing to employ workers who receive FNCs would increase the risk that the company would be targeted for an ICE audit.  After consulting with OSC and the DHS Verification Division, the counsel advised the company to reinstate the worker.  She is now back to work. 

Richland, WA

On March 2, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Mexico.  The worker, who was a permanent resident from 1963 to 1997 when he became a U.S. citizen, received an erroneous Final Non-confirmation (FNC) via the E-Verify system.  He began working as a journeyman ironworker at a large engineering, construction and project management firm. When the company, a federal contractor, attempted to verify his employment eligibility through E-Verify, a TNC resulted with the reason “SSA unable to confirm U.S. citizenship”.  He received a referral letter and visited his local SSA office.  SSA provided him a letter stating that he had applied for a new Social Security number, but explained it would take up to 4 weeks to issue a card while SSA verified the document he presented to show his U.S. citizenship (his naturalization certificate).  When OSC called the SSA office, the representative informed OSC that she did not update the worker’s SSA record because she had to verify the naturalization certificate he presented was authentic.  The SSA representative should have made an entry in the EV-Star system to place his case in continuance.  Because she failed to do so, the system generated an erroneous Final Non-confirmation, indicating that the employee is not work authorized.  The employer then terminated the worker.  Before calling OSC, the worker went to his local USCIS office and was told that USCIS records still showed that he was a permanent resident.  The USCIS office in Yakima, WA, said it would take four weeks to order his file from Seattle in order to update USCIS records.  OSC contacted DHS headquarters and DHS informed the employer that the worker is indeed employment authorized.  The DHS form letter states the employer should allow the employee to return to work.  The employer agreed to allow the worker to return to work.  

Brooklyn, NY

On March 2, 2010, OSC successfully completed a second telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen who received an erroneous Final Non-confirmation (FNC).  The employee, who works in the wholesale distribution division of a national home improvement store chain, received a Tentative Non-confirmation (TNC) with the reason, “SSA unable to confirm U.S. citizenship.”  When the worker visited her local SSA office the first time, she brought her expired U.S. passport as proof of her citizenship.  The SSA representative told her the expired passport was unacceptable as proof of her citizenship and instructed her to return to SSA with her birth certificate.  When she returned with her Honduran birth certificate, she was told she needed to prove her U.S. citizenship and needs to return once again with her naturalization certificate.  When she returned with her naturalization certificate, she was told SSA still could not update her record unless she brought one other form of identification because her passport had expired.  Each time the employee visited SSA, the office failed to put her case in continuance.  An FNC resulted and she was terminated from her employment after her employer told her “the government says you are illegal to work here.”   OSC called the employer to explain what appeared to be the error.  The employer said the company would be willing to employ the worker if E-Verify would acknowledge that the worker is employment authorized.  OSC contacted DHS, which issued a letter to be issued to the employer stating the worker is employment authorized.  The employer notified the worker that she can start working on Monday, March 8. 

Minneapolis, MN

On March 11, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Guyana.  The worker, who had been working with his employer since December 2001, was required to complete a new I-9 form because his employer is a federal contractor and must participate in E-Verify.  The worker, who only has a first name and no middle or last name, showed the employer his unrestricted Social Security card and State ID, along with his naturalization certificate.  The employer entered the same name in both the first and last name fields, which resulted in a TNC.  The worker received a referral letter to the Social Security Administration (SSA) and visited his local SSA office.  However, SSA did not make the required entry into EV-Star which would have alerted the employer to check its records, so E-Verify issued an FNC.  The employer then contacted E-Verify customer service, which advised the employer to invalidate the query. However, the employer uses a Web services software, Lexis-Nexis, to access E-Verify, which does not allow an employer to invalidate a query once an FNC has been issued.  When the employer received the FNC, the only options it could select were “terminate” or “not terminate.”  Therefore, the employer terminated the worker and took his badge away.  After OSC was contacted, we asked an E-Verify representative to run the query on the worker correctly, by entering “unknown” in the Last Name field.  E-Verify then issued an“employment authorizedresponse.  As a result, the employer decided to resolve the case in Lexis-Nexis by selecting “not terminate” and permitted the employee to return to work. 

Houston, TX

On March 12, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and prevented a lawful permanent resident from losing his job at a restaurant due to employer misuse of an E-Verify web services program.  After the employer provided the worker with a DHS referral letter, the worker followed the instructions on the letter and called DHS.  The worker said DHS told him that they could not find his information in the E-Verify system and advised him to call OSC.  OSC then called the DHS status verifiers on a conference call with the worker and learned the case had not yet been initiated.  DHS headquarters was also unable to help and insisted that the worker could not possibly have a referral letter; instead, DHS claimed, he must have had only the initial notice of tentative non-confirmation (TNC). OSC learned from the web services provider that, unlike the standard E-Verify process where the case is first referred before the employer may print the referral letter, in a web services program the employer first prints the notice and then must make two more entries in the system before the case is referred.  OSC called the employer, guided him through the necessary steps, and explained that he should not take adverse action against the employee unless a final non-confirmation (FNC) is issued. 

Torrance, CA

On March 26, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident who received an E-Verify final non-confirmation (FNC).  The employer, a federal contractor that has opted to verify its entire workforce through E-Verify, entered the wrong year of birth for the employee.  The employee contested the tentative non-confirmation (TNC) and received a referral to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  Although the worker notified the employer that the wrong date of birth was entered into E-Verify, the employer did not invalidate the query.  The worker claimed that he followed the instructions on the referral letter and called the number for the status verifiers at DHS, who told him to go to his local USCIS office.   However, the E-Verify query developed into a “DHS no show” – as though he never called the status verifiers – and a FNC was issued.  OSC called the DHS status verifiers with the worker and DHS issued a letter to the employer explaining that the worker is authorized to work.  The worker returned to work two days later. 

Frederick, MD

On April 1, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen originally from Iran for whom the E-Verify system generated a FNC.  The worker received and contested a TNC with the reason “SSA unable to confirm U.S. citizenship.”  He visited SSA the next day, but since he had misplaced his naturalization certificate, the SSA representative told him there was nothing SSA could do for him.  In fact, the SSA representative should have selected “SSA Action Pending, Documents Requested” in the system that SSA uses to interface with E-Verify.  Because the SSA office failed to make this entry, E-Verify generated an FNC, and the employee was terminated.  We first called the SSA local office to explain to the office manager that SSA should have placed the case in pending status.  The manager insisted that SSA could not put a case in pending status without seeing proof of citizenship status.  We asked the USCIS status verifiers to issue a letter to the employer explaining that the worker is authorized to work, which it did immediately, and the worker was called back into work.  Finally, we also made the SSA Operations Division aware of the misunderstanding at the SSA office. 

Baltimore, MD

On April 1, 2010, OSC helped a national delivery corporation avoid an E-Verify FNC.  When the worker told her employer that she made an error entering her name in the TALX electronic I-9 (her Social Security record and driver’s license show her last name as one word, but she uses a space to separate two parts of her surname), her employer told her that there was nothing could be done to change the E-Verify query and that she should visit SSA.  We called the employer and explained that this could result in a FNC, and that the proper course of action would be to resolve the case as an “invalid query” and re-enter the query with the official spelling.  The employer re-entered the query, and E-Verify generated an “employment authorized” response. 

Torrance, CA

On April 2, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and helped a U.S. citizen avoid an E-Verify Final Non-confirmation (FNC).  The worker received a Social Security Administration (SSA) referral letter with the reason, “unable to confirm U.S. citizenship.”  On referral letters based on citizenship, employees have the choice of either visiting SSA or calling DHS.  However, when the worker called DHS and explained that she was born in Hawaii, DHS advised her to tell her employer to invalidate its query.  The worker then called OSC because her employer told her that if she did not resolve her tentative non-confirmation (TNC), she would lose her job.  OSC checked with SSA and discovered that indeed SSA had mistakenly changed her status from “citizen” to “non-citizen” when she married in 1986.  Had her employer invalidated the query as DHS recommended, another TNC would have issued because Social Security Administration (SSA) records were inaccurate.  We advised the employee to visit her local SSA office with her birth certificate.  When she did, E-verify generated an “employment authorized” response, and the worker continued in her employment. 

Sacramento, CA         

On April 2, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen who received a final non-confirmation (FNC) from E-Verify because SSA failed to put his E-Verify case in pending status.  When he first received his Social Security card, SSA listed his mother’s maiden name as his last name, instead of his father’s surname.  A TNC resulted because he entered the correct surname in the electronic I-9 that he submitted to his employer, a large federal contractor, which has opted to verify the status of its more than 200,000 current employees via its web services provider.  Prior to providing the worker with a referral letter, the employer told him that he had to go to his SSA office or he would lose his job.  The worker visited SSA three times: once prior to receiving the referral letter, once the day after receiving the referral letter, and once after E-Verify issued a FNC, which resulted in the employer suspending the worker.  The SSA representatives requested microfiche to investigate the error in its records, but it did not select “SSA Action Pending. Verifying Documents, Microprint Requested.”  Therefore, to E-Verify it appeared that the worker never visited SSA.  After calling the SSA local office and the employer, we suggested that the employer enter a new query.  The employer did so, and SSA updated its records.  The worker is back at work. 

El Paso, TX

On April 2, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a legal permanent resident employed with a national delivery corporation.  His permanent resident card shows both his surnames (his father’s surname plus his mother’s maiden name), but his Social Security card only shows his father’s surname.  When the E-Verify query was run with both surnames, a SSA TNC was issued.  The employer told the worker that he would be terminated if he did not resolve his E-Verify issue, but did not provide him with a referral letter or case verification number.  The employer only told him that the double surname entered into E-Verify did not match his SSA record.  We contacted the employer and learned that the first TNC had already become a FNC.  Meanwhile, the worker had visited SSA to add his mother’s maiden name to his SSA record.  We suggested that the employer enter a new query into E-Verify.  This time the employer only entered the second surname, and the TALX program issued the message “employment authorized with additional verification requested automatically.”  Since the employer was unfamiliar with this status, OSC called the TALX representative responsible for the employer’s E-Verify questions who advised it not to take adverse action against the employee.

Baltimore, MD

On April 5, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of an Eritrean refugee who was terminated from his employment at a hotel after E-Verify issued a FNC.  The worker has a double surname, and the employer only entered his second surname into E-Verify, resulting in a TNC.  The worker contested the TNC, received a referral letter, and visited his local SSA office with the referral letter.  It appears that SSA did not make an entry into the system it uses to interface with DHS, which would have alerted the employer to its error.  Had SSA made such an entry, E-Verify would have generated the message, "Review and Update Employee Data then Resubmit"; instead, the SSA representative gave the worker a printout verifying that the number belongs to him.  The employer could not determine from the printout that she made a mistake when entering the worker’s name.  E-Verify generated a FNC, and the employer terminated the worker.  The worker contacted a case worker from a refugee services agency, and the case worker called OSC.  We called the employer and explained that the FNC was caused by her mistake in entering the names.  The employer ran a new query and E-Verify generated an “employment authorized” response.  The employer then called the worker in to work.

Dallas, TX

On April 6, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident of Mexican origin.  The worker’s Social Security card and permanent resident card both show he has a double surname.  According to the worker, he also listed both surnames in the “last name” field in Section I of the Form I-9.  The employer only entered the second surname, and a TNC resulted due to this discrepancy between the E-Verify query and the SSA record.  The employee contested the TNC and received an SSA referral notice.  SSA apparently did not alert the employer of its error via E-Verify; rather, it provided the worker with a printout and assured him that there was nothing wrong.  The TNC became a FNC, and the employer terminated the worker, suggesting that he call OSC.  We explained to the employer how to run a new E-Verify query, which resulted in the status: “employment authorized.”  The worker returned to work immediately. 

Red Rock, TX

On April 7, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen that received an E-Verify TNC.  The U.S. citizen contacted OSC initially for guidance on how she should respond to the TNC.  During the telephone call, OSC determined that the employer, which had only recently begun its use of E-Verify, had removed the U.S. citizen from its work schedule until the TNC was resolved.  We contacted the employer, outlined the rules and timelines of the E-Verify program.  As a consequence, the U.S. citizen was permitted to work during the TNC challenge and resolution period. 

Long Island City, NY

On April 7, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a U.S. citizen who was suspended from his position at a national delivery corporation after he contested an E-Verify TNC.  The worker had legally changed his name, and the employer had already updated his personnel records.  However, the worker had not yet updated his record with the Social Security Administration (SSA).  Also, in the last name field on his electronic I-9, he added the notation, “all rights reserved.”  OSC suggested that the employee to visit SSA to update his name in SSA’s records.  We also contacted the employer to suggest that it run a new E-Verify query without the extraneous language in the last name field.  The worker has returned to work, and the employer indicated that it would take no adverse action while the TNC is pending. 

Valley Stream, NY

On April 9, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a Haitian-born U.S. citizen who was terminated from a national delivery corporation after he received an E-Verify final nonconfirmation (FNC).   Although the worker never received a referral letter as required by the E-Verify system, he visited both SSA and DHS in order to address the issue.  When he visited DHS, he learned that his surname was misspelled in its records and he was given a letter stating that the misspelling would be corrected.  After the FNC issued, counsel for the worker contacted OSC.  We in turn contacted the Verification Division of USCIS, which quickly generated a letter informing the employer that the worker is employment authorized and should be reinstated.  We then forwarded the letter to counsel for the employee via e-mail.  The employee has now returned to work.

Orlando, FL

On April 9, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a U.S. citizen who works for a division of a national delivery corporation.  The worker received an E-Verify FNC and was terminated.   He contacted OSC after being told by an E-Verify customer service representative to do so.  When OSC contacted E-Verify, it immediately prepared a letter to the employer stating the employee is work authorized and should be reinstated.  We then provided an electronic version of the letter to counsel for the employer, and the employee has returned to work.

Springer, NM 

On April 12, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen who was terminated from her job due to her employer’s receipt of an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC).  The employee was not provided with the opportunity to correct the error that resulted in the TNC.  Upon further discussion with E-Verify, OSC confirmed that the employer had incorrectly entered the worker’s information twice, resulting in a TNC from the Department of Homeland Security and another TNC from the Social Security Administration.  When the employer invalidated the original queries and entered the employee’s information correctly, she appeared in the system as work authorized.  The U.S. citizen is now back at work and seeking back pay for the work time she missed due to her employer’s E-Verify mistakes.

Louisa, VA

On April 19, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen who received an E-Verify FNC because SSA failed to put his E-Verify case in pending status.  After contesting a TNC, the employee went to his local SSA office in order to update his SSA records with his correct year of birth.  A final nonconfirmation (FNC) resulted because SSA failed to put the case in continuance while it verified the validity of the birth certificate and updated the employee’s records.  When OSC was contacted via its hotline, we suggested that the employer may wish to invalidate the query in E-Verify and submit a new E-Verify query for the employee.   In addition, we explained to the employee that, upon receiving the new TNC and visiting the SSA office again, he could request that SSA place the case “in continuance.”

West Union, OH

On May 2, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a U.S. citizen who was suspended from his position.  The employee transposed two numbers in his Social Security number, which resulted in an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC) when entered into E-Verify.  Upon receiving the SSA TNC, the employee was escorted out of his work building by a security guard and terminated.  We contacted the employer to explain that the proper course of action in E-Verify would be to resolve the case as an “invalid query” and to re-enter the query with the correct Social Security number.  We also informed the employer that E-Verify procedures prohibit taking adverse action against an employee who receives a TNC and chooses to contest it.  The employer said that it would submit a new query for the employee in E-Verify, and received an “employment authorized” result.  It then called the employee back to work and reimbursed him for the lost time.  

Philadelphia, PA        

On May 3, 2010, OSC successfully intervened in order to allow a U.S. citizen to continue his job after he received a final nonconfirmation (FNC) via E-Verify.  Social Security Administration (SSA) records reflected the incorrect year of birth for this worker, who is a naturalized citizen.  When the worker visited the SSA office after receiving a referral letter, the SSA office told him that he needed to show his naturalization certificate.  The worker did not have the certificate in his possession, so he applied for a copy of the certificate from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  Because SSA failed to make an entry into the EV-Star system to indicate that the case was pending, an FNC issued.  The employer then suspended the worker, invalidated the original query, and initiated a new query.  When OSC was contacted and learned the facts, OSC called the SSA field office and explained how to make the case “pending” so that it would not turn into a FNC; instead, it would stay as “SSA Case in Continuance” Pending SSA’s update of their records.  The worker was allowed to return to work once E-Verify showed the case in continuance.  Meanwhile, DHS promises to ensure speedy processing of his application for a naturalization certificate. 

Nebraska City, NE

On May 5, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a worker with lawful permanent resident status.  The worker received an E-Verify tentative non-confirmation (TNC) because the employer entered an incorrect last name and never initiated a referral letter.   The employer then terminated the employee before receiving a final non-confimation (FNC) from E-Verify.  OSC contacted the employer and informed it that it is a violation of E-Verify rules to suspend or terminate employment without allowing an employee to contest the TNC.  OSC also explained that the employer should not take any adverse action until a FNC is received.  The worker was allowed to return to work after the employer initiated a query with the correct name, which resulted in a work authorized notification. 

Biloxi, MS

On May 6, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a lawful permanent resident.  The employee was recently married and had not notified the Social Security Administration (SSA) of her name change.  When her employer submitted the employee’s information to E-Verify, the electronic employment eligibility verification system administered by the Department of Homeland Security, it resulted in an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC).  The employee was told that she could not return to work until she corrected her record at SSA.  OSC informed the employer that E-Verify rules prohibit employers from taking any adverse action against employees who receive TNCs.  The employer indicated that it would allow the employee to return to work and to reimburse her for any lost time. 

Bronx, NY

On May 18, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention saving the job of a worker and ensuring that her employer properly uses E-Verify.  The employee contacted OSC because she input the incorrect date of birth when she completed an online Form I-9.  When the information from her Form I-9 was submitted to E-Verify she received a TNC.  The employer initially refused to resubmit the employee’s correct date of birth.  We contacted the employer to explain that if there was a typographical error when the employee input her information into her Form I-9 then this incorrect information would then be transmitted to E-Verify.  We explained that the employer could invalidate the initial query in E-Verify and re-run with the employee’s correct date of birth.  The employer did this and the employee was allowed to continue working. 

Washington DC

On May 24, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen after the E-Verify system issued a FNC.  The worker’s employer did not submit an E-Verify query for the worker until several years after he was hired in violation of E-Verify’s rule for non-federal contractors.   When E-Verify generated a TNC for the worker, and the worker contested it, and the employer provided him with a SSA referral notice.  The worker believes his birth year was 1945 but SSA’s records indicate a birth year of 1948.  Although SSA would allow the worker additional time to obtain a birth certificate to document his claim, the worker cannot obtain a birth certificate indicating his date of birth in the U.S. Virgin Islands.  Because of the lack of a birth certificate, SSA indicated that it could not change the worker’s records and that the worker should indicate his birth year as 1948 on the I-9 Form, which he agreed to do.  The employer resubmitted the query to E-Verify using 1948 as the birth year, and E-Verify generated an “employment authorized” response.

Atlanta, GA

On May 25, 2010, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention in cooperation with representatives of the DHS and the Social Security Administration (SSA) in order to resolve an erroneous E-Verify final nonconfirmation (FNC), and save the job of a lawful permanent resident originally from Trinidad.  The worker called OSC after her manager suspended her without pay from her job of over twenty years with an express shipping company.  The worker had initially received a tentative nonconfirmation (TNC) in E-Verify because SSA’s records contained her maiden name and the E-Verify query was run with her married name.  When the worker visited SSA, she was unable to update her records because SSA determined that it could not verify her status as a lawful permanent resident eligible to make the correction in her record.  The FNC resulted when SSA failed to extend the time permitted by E-Verify to update her record with SSA.  The agencies worked together first to advise the employer to let the employee return to work and to run a new E-Verify query for her, and second to ensure that the worker would have sufficient time to correct her records with both SSA and DHS (as there were errors in both agencies’ records).  The employer allowed the worker to return to work, and E-Verify eventually generated an “employment authorized” response.

St. Louis, MO

On June 9, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention enabling an asylee from India who works in a restaurant to return to work after his employer wrongfully suspended him for receiving an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC).  However, with assistance from USCIS, OSC established that the TNC was the result of a typo made by the employer.  We called the employer to explain that it may not take any adverse action against the worker unless the worker receives a final nonconfirmation (FNC), and that the employer should invalidate the original query in order to initiate a new one with the correct information.  The employer then corrected its query and received confirmation from E-Verify that the asylee is work-authorized.  The asylee had also lost all of his identity and immigration documents, so we explained how to replace them. 

Turlock, CA

On June 9, 2010, OSC completed a telephone intervention, enabling a restaurant worker, who is a lawful permanent resident, to return to work.  The worker contacted OSC after her employer, a franchise of a nationwide restaurant, wrongfully suspended her after receiving an E-Verify TNC and failed to provide her with the referral letter needed to resolve the TNC.  We called the employer to explain that it must provide the employee with a referral letter and that it may not take any adverse action against the worker unless an FNC is issued by E-Verify.  The employer restored the employee’s job and promised to issue a referral letter and allow the employee time to resolve the TNC.  

Walhalla, SC

On June 11, 2010, OSC completed a telephone intervention enabling a lawful permanent resident (LPR) employed as a janitor to return to work and to receive back pay after her employer wrongfully suspended her for receiving an E-Verify TNC.  The employer asked for specific documents and informed the worker that she could not return to work until she resolved the problem, but did not initiate the necessary referral in E-Verify.  We called the employer to explain that it may not take any adverse action against the worker unless the worker receives an E-Verify FNC, and that the employer must give the worker a DHS referral letter, which will include the DHS phone number that the worker needs to call in order to resolve the TNC.  The employer admitted that the supervisor had made a mistake, allowed the worker to resume working, and said that it would properly refer the case to DHS and provide the employee with full back-pay for the work that she had missed.  

Memphis, TN

On June 14, 2010, OSC completed a telephone intervention, enabling an asylee from Guinea to begin work as a truck driver after his employer, a large trucking company, conditioned his employment as a new hire on the resolution of an E-Verify TNC. The employee’s alien number had been incorrectly entered and the employee was not provided with a referral letter.  The employer informed the worker he should resolve the TNC by calling the OSC phone number.  We called the employer to explain that it may not take any adverse action against the worker unless the worker receives an E-Verify FNC, and that the employer must enter the correct employee information and provide the employee with a SSA referral letter so the employee can take it to the local SSA office.  The employer corrected the information in E-Verify and received a work authorized result. The asylee was allowed to start work and the employer indicated that it will exercise care in future verifications.  

London, KY

On June 14, 2010, OSC completed a telephone intervention that saved the job of a U.S. citizen working as a computer specialist.  The employee is employed by a federal contractor with an E-Verify clause in its contract.  The E-Verify clause requires the employer to use E-Verify on all new hires and also requires the employer to choose whether to use E-Verify for all current employees assigned to the contract or for all current employees, with certain exceptions.  The employer entered an incorrect name for the employee when submitting the E-Verify case, which lead to a TNC. The employer then threatened to terminate the employee.  We contacted the employer and explained that it could invalidate the previous E-Verify case and submit the corrected employee information in a new case.  We also educated the employer that no adverse action should be taken against employees unless an E-Verify FNC is received.

New Hope, MN

On June 14, 2010, OSC completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident from India, who was newly hired by a manufacturing company.  The employer had reversed the employee’s first and last names in E-Verify, which led to a TNC.  The employer then refused to permit the employee to begin working until the resulting TNC was resolved.  We informed the employee that the employer was not allowed to take any adverse action before an E-Verify FNC is received.  OSC recommended that the employer invalidate the previous query and make the appropriate corrections in E-Verify, which the employer agreed to do. 

Dayton, OH
           
On June 21, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention enabling a U.S. citizen employee to remain employed.  During the E-Verify process, the employee received a Social Security Administration (SSA) TNC.  The employee went visited an SSA office and learned that when she married and took her husband’s last name, she needed to notify SSA of her name change.  Because the employee failed to do this, her name and Social Security number did not match in SSA’s records.  The employer, who uses a designated agent for the E-Verify process, informed the employee that if she did not have the problem resolved within 10 days, she would be terminated.  When OSC initially called the employer’s human resources office, OSC was informed that the designated agent’s verification instructions require the employee to be terminated after 10 days of an unresolved TNC.  OSC then contacted the employer’s headquarters and explained proper verification procedures requiring the employer to keep the employee employed while the TNC is being resolved.  As a result, the employer agreed to allow the employee to continue working.  

Wildwood, MO

On June 21, 2010, OSC completed a telephone intervention that enabled a newly hired restaurant worker to begin work after the employer refused to permit him to start work after he received an E-Verify TNC.  The employer provided the employee, who is a U.S. citizen, with a TNC notice, but did not provide him with referral letter with instructions on how to resolve the TNC.  We called the employer to explain that it must provide the employee with a referral letter and that it may not take any adverse action against the worker unless it receives an FNC.  The employer restored the employee’s job and indicated that it would issue a referral letter and allow the employee time to resolve the TNC.  

Las Vegas, NV

On June 25, 2010, OSC successfully completed an intervention enabling a lawful permanent resident to return to after being fired due to an erroneous E-Verify final nonconfirmation (FNC).  The employer improperly ran the lawful permanent resident through E-Verify as part of an I-9 audit in August 2009, three years after she was hired as a recycling center sorter.  The worker received a TNC, contested it, and took the E-Verify referral letter to her local SSA office.  The SSA office neglected to put the case in continuance while it updated the employee’s records, and the E-Verify system generated an FNC, prompting the employer to fire the worker.  When the worker contacted OSC about the problem recently, we discovered that the employer reversed the lawful permanent resident’s two last names for the E-Verify query, which resulted in the TNC, and we explained this to the employer.  The employer then agreed to reinstate the worker immediately. 

Parsipanny, NJ

On July 12, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and assisted a naturalized citizen to begin working for an employer that was not properly using E-Verify.  The worker received a TNC because SSA records were not updated to reflect that he had naturalized.  However, the employer failed to properly initiate an SSA referral in the E-Verify system and instead verbally instructed the worker to visit his local SSA office.  The employer also would not allow the worker to begin working until the E-Verify issue was resolved.  OSC explained proper E-Verify procedures to the employer and the employer indicated that it would properly refer the case to the SSA and allow the worker to begin his job immediately. 

Memphis, TN

On July 13, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention that enabled a newly hired employee to begin work.  During the E-Verify process, the employee received a TNC.   The employee contested the TNC and the employer provided her with the appropriate referral letter instructing the employee to contact the Social Security Administration.  Nevertheless, the employer told the employee that she could not begin working until after her TNC had been resolved.  OSC contacted the employer and explained that proper E-Verify procedures require the employer to keep a worker on the job while the TNC is being resolved.  As a result, the employer allowed the employee to continue working.  

Dodge City, KS

On July 21, 2010, OSC completed a telephone intervention that allowed a legal permanent resident from Mexico to return to work and receive pay for the time he was not permitted to work.  The worker was prescreened using E-Verify prior to his hiring by an international producer and marketer of food, agricultural, financial and industrial products and services.  The employer made an error in the new hire’s Alien registration number and refused to correct it when the employee identified the mistake that resulted in a TNC.  The employer refused to permit the employee to begin working after receiving the TNC because the employer considered the worker to be an employment applicant until cleared through E-Verify.  We informed the employer that it is neither allowed to prescreen prospective employees nor to take any adverse action unless an FNC is received.  After resubmitting the E-Verify query with the correct information and receiving a work-authorized result, the employer determined that it would compensate the employee for the lost time.

Hyattsville, MD

On July 29, 2010, OSC successfully completed a hotline intervention on behalf of a LPR who was issued an E-Verify TNC.  Because the employer failed to properly refer the case to SSA, the worker was unable to resolve the TNC.  OSC pointed out the employer’s error to its legal counsel.  The employer subsequently allowed the LPR to return to work and paid the worker back pay. 

Land O’Lakes, FL

On July 29, 2010, OSC successfully intervened on behalf of a naturalized citizen who had been discharged by a staffing agency as a result of an E-Verify TNC.  When E-Verify issued a TNC for the worker, she elected to contest it.  She contacted the local SSA office promptly and updated her Social Security information.  Although the local SSA office did update the employee’s E-Verify information, triggering an “employment authorized” response in E-Verify, the software that the employer used for E-Verify (provided by U.S. Verify, its designated agent) did not reflect that information.  OSC contacted a representative from USCIS’s Verification Division, who then provided the employer with a letter stating that the worker was employment authorized.  The employer then immediately reinstated the worker. 

Tucson, AZ

On August 2, 2010, OSC successfully intervened to ensure the reinstatement of a U.S. citizen who was terminated by a federal contractor due to an erroneous E-Verify FNC.  The worker, an existing employee, received and contested a TNC and was issued an SSA referral notice.  However, because the employer had misspelled the worker’s name in the E-Verify submission, SSA was unable to resolve the TNC, resulting in an FNC.  We contacted the employer’s attorney and explained why the FNC was improperly issued.  The employer submitted a new E-Verify case correctly spelling the worker’s name and immediately reinstated the worker. 

Springdale, AR

On, August 20, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a work-authorized individual from the Marshall Islands.  The worker received a TNC and DHS referral notice from her employer, a staffing agency.  She called OSC after a representative of DHS indicated that the worker could not be assisted.  OSC called the DHS status verifiers and discovered that the TNC would become a “DHS no show” the next day.  The status verifier asked that a copy of the worker’s I-94 Arrival Record (indicating nonimmigrant admission under the Compact of Free Association between the U.S. and the Marshall Islands) be faxed immediately.  The employer faxed the document, and the status verifier resolved the case as “employment authorized.”  The worker was thus able to continue working. 

Magnolia, TX

On August 20, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a LPR who received an erroneous E-Verify FNC.  The worker entered his own information into an electronic I-9, a feature of an E-Verify interface software program offered by TALX, a web services provider.  The worker mistakenly entered the first initial of his first surname as his “middle name” and his second surname as his “last name.”  The incorrect entry resulted in a DHS TNC, which the worker contested.   The employer gave the worker an English version of the referral letter.  The worker, a Spanish speaker with limited English proficiency, did not understand the referral letter and so did not call DHS as the referral letter instructs.  Instead, he visited his local USCIS office where he was told there was no problem with his card or status.  By the time the worker called OSC, E-Verify had already issued an FNC, and the employer had already called DHS for information on how to proceed.  DHS instructed the employer to enter a new query but, citing privacy reasons, would not explain to the employer which names to run in E-Verify.  The employer entered two other incorrect versions of the worker’s name before OSC instructed her how to correctly enter the name.  E-Verify finally issued an “employment authorized” result and the worker retained his job. 

Chatsworth, CA

On August 23, 2010, OSC successfully intervened and saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen who received an E-Verify FNC.  She first received a TNC because SSA was unable to confirm her U.S. citizenship.  When she visited the SSA field office with her naturalization certificate, the field office failed to put her case into continuance while it verified with DHS that she is a citizen.  Meanwhile, USCIS records had not been properly updated to reflect her citizenship status.   Fortunately, OSC had previously helped the employer to resolve erroneous FNCs so the employer called us instead of terminating the worker.  OSC alerted SSA and DHS of the erroneous FNC.  SSA advised the employer to run a new query, and when the new query resulted in a TNC, DHS subsequently resolved the case as “employment authorized.” 

Chicago, IL

On September 3, 2010, OSC completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a Native American from the Kickapoo Tribe.  His employer, a food canning company, uses an automated I-9 process provided by Information Solutions.  The worker presented an I-872 (American Indian Card) and an unrestricted Social Security card, documents sufficient to prove his identity and work authorization.  However, Information Solutions’ process questions Native Americans about their ancestry bloodline percentage and advises employers not to employ workers whose bloodline is less than 50 percent.  Even though Information Solutions submitted the worker’s information through E-Verify and obtained an “employment authorized” result, the worker was not allowed to continue working.  The employer informed the worker that the E-Verify program was not allowing him to work.  The worker contacted a legal aid attorney, who in turn contacted OSC.  We called the employer’s legal counsel as well as Information Solutions.  We informed both parties the worker should not have been terminated, since he presented appropriate documents for the Form I-9, and E-Verify confirmed his employment authorization.  The employer contacted the employee, allowed him to resume work immediately, and paid him 46 hours of lost wages. 

Big Lake, TX

On September 7, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved a longtime permanent resident’s job at a convenience store.  The employer’s E-Verify query resulted in a TNC because the worker’s permanent resident card shows her maiden name and her married name, while her I-9 Form and Social Security card only show her married name.  The store manager gave her the TNC notice, which she chose to contest.  The store manager also showed her the referral letter, and she signed for receipt of the referral letter.  However, she never took the referral letter home and stated that the store manager kept the referral letter.  As a result, she did not have instructions for resolving her TNC.  Ten days later, a DHS “no show” issued and she was terminated from her employment.  Although she has been a permanent resident for 45 years, her employer would not rehire her until she “proved she was legal.”  OSC arranged for E-Verify to send a letter to the employer advising it to disregard the FNC and reinstate the worker.  She is now back at work. 

Columbia, MD

On September 9, 2010, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of a worker who received an E-Verify TNC and chose to contest it.  The worker called OSC to complain that she was not allowed to begin her shift by her supervisor.  The attorney called the employer to explain that the worker’s supervisor improperly demanded a letter from DHS confirming resolution of the TNC, and that employers must allow workers who choose to contest a TNC to continue to work pending resolution of the TNC.  E-Verify now reflects an employment authorized result for the worker and the employer has indicated that it will compensate her for lost wages. 

Indianapolis, IN

On September 9, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen who received an erroneous FNC from SSA.  The worker received a TNC with the reason, “SSA unable to confirm U.S. citizenship.”  When the worker visited his local SSA office the first time with his naturalization certificate, SSA failed to put his case in continuance.  An FNC resulted and the worker was terminated from his employment.  OSC called the employer to explain what appeared to have happened.  The employer said it would only be willing to employ the worker if E-Verify would acknowledge that the worker is employment-authorized.  OSC contacted DHS in order for a letter to be issued to the employer stating the worker is employment authorized.  The letter was faxed by DHS to the employer on September 9, 2010, and the worker was allowed to keep his job.

Hawkins Field, TX

On September 14, 2010, OSC completed a successful telephone intervention and allowed a Salvadoran TPS beneficiary to return to his job in construction services after he was suspended.  The worker presented the Federal Register notice to the person handling human resources at his jobsite.  However, the human resources representative insisted on suspending the worker on September 9, 2010.  We contacted the representative, who explained that E-Verify still listed September 9, 2010, as the worker’s document expiration date in the newly added E-Verify system section called “Work Authorization Docs Expiring”.  We directed the HR representative to USCIS guidance on TPS and she agreed to reinstate the worker immediately.  (OSC has also brought this problem to the attention of the Verification Division at USCIS, which administers E-Verify.)

Oakland, CA

On September 20, 2010, OSC successfully intervened to save the job of worker whose long-time employer, a large HMO, had received an erroneous SSA FNC after running the worker through E-Verify.  The worker went to the SSA office to update her married name on her Social Security card, but the SSA mistakenly neglected to put the E-Verify case into continuance, which triggered the issuance of an FNC.  An OSC attorney and hotline specialist worked together to educate the employer about its options following the issuance of an FNC.   The OSC staffers also contacted the SSA to ensure that the SSA database had been updated with the worker’s new information.  The issue was resolved within a few hours of the initial call to OSC, and the worker was rehired without having lost a single day’s wages

Philadelphia, PA

On Thursday, September 23, 2010, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and allowed a U-Visa dependant to return to his job after he received an erroneous E-Verify FNC from DHS.   The HR representative believed the worker’s approval notice with attached I-94 Departure record stating, “You are authorized to work in the United States for the validity period of your U nonimmigrant status,” was an acceptable document for Form I-9, and incorrectly indicated in E-Verify that the worker presented a Permanent Resident Card.  The HR representative also entered an incorrect A number for the worker, triggering issuance of a TNC.  The worker called E-Verify several times, and claims he faxed a copy of his approval notice to E-Verify, but DHS recorded a no-show and subsequently issued an FNC.  The worker’s mother had applied for a current EAD for the worker but he had not presented it to his employer.  OSC obtained a copy of the employee’s EAD, the document he should have shown to prove his work authorization. OSC requested that USCIS issue a letter to the employer indicating that the worker was work-authorized. The worker has since returned to work.

Los Angeles, CA

On September 27, 2010, OSC saved the job of a worker who had been fired after receiving an erroneous E-Verify FNC.  We spoke to the employer and learned that the employer, a federal contractor, is running all of its employees through E-Verify.  We were able to ascertain that the employee’s last name was misspelled on her Social Security card, but that no one had noticed this error previously. The OSC attorney advised the employee to go to the Social Security Administration to fix the error.  The employer then ran a new E-Verify query, and the employer subsequently rehired the worker. 

New York, NY

On September 30, 2010, OSC, in conjunction with the USCIS Verification Division, successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a work authorized individual to begin employment.  The worker contacted OSC’s hotline when he was unsure what document(s) he could present for Form I-9 purposes after he lost his EAD.  We explained to the worker that he could apply for a replacement EAD and use the receipt when completing the I-9.  The then employer accepted the receipt, but could not use the receipt to conduct an E-Verify query because the E-Verify program requires entry of an expiration date for the document.  The USCIS Verification Division instructed the employer to suspend the E-Verify query for 90 days, the period during which the receipt is valid, and then ask the worker to produce his new EAD.  OSC and USCIS explained to the employer that it should allow the employee to work even though the E-Verify query is suspended.

 

Fiscal Year 2009

Postville, IA

On October 16, 2008, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and allowed a U.S. citizen, who had been suspended from work a few days after starting the job, to return to work.  The employer participates in E-Verify, the electronic employment eligibility verification system administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA).  The employer had entered the worker’s data incorrectly into E-Verify and received a “notice of tentative non-confirmation” or TNC.  Although the worker chose to challenge the TNC, the employer failed to follow the procedure in E-Verify for initiating a referral of the employee to the SSA, and instead simply advised him to “go to the SSA office.”  The employer then disabled the worker’s badge, thus barring his access and effectively suspending him from work.  The worker called OSC because traveling to the nearest SSA office would be burdensome and  he really needed income since he had been unemployed for awhile.  OSC called the employer  to remind it that workers cannot be suspended while challenging a TNC.  The employer then re-entered the worker’s data correctly into the E-Verify system, received confirmation of his work eligibility, and allowed him to return to work.

St. Louis, MO

On October 23, 2008, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention, ensuring the continued employment of a foreign student employed as a part-time instructor who had received a tentative notice of nonconfirmation (TNC) of employment eligibility from the E-Verify system.  OSC contacted the student’s departmental employer, and determined that the school’s foreign student office needed to update the foreign student’s employment authorization data in DHS’s Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) in order to resolve the TNC.

Lexington, NE

On October 30, 2008, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a Somali refugee.  The refugee’s employer participates in E-Verify.  DHS issued the worker an employment authorization card with an incorrect birth date, so when the employer entered his information into the E-Verify system, it issued a TNC.  When the worker contested the notice, the employer initiated a referral to DHS.  However, the employer verbally instructed the worker to contact the DHS main customer service number, rather than the DHS “status verifier” number which is printed on the referral letter.  When the worker contacted DHS customer service, he was instructed to apply for a new, corrected employment authorization card, and he did so.  Meanwhile, the DHS status verifiers did not hear from him, and they issued a “final non-confirmation notice” based on his failure to call them within eight days.  When it received the final non-confirmation notice, the company terminated the worker. 

Arlington, VA

On October 31, 2008, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved an Iraqi LPR’s job.  When the employer submitted a query to E-Verify, the system issued a TNC.  The employer then failed to initiate a referral to DHS or to general a referral notice, which provides the worker with instructions for verifying his/her status with DHS.   The employer instead told the LPR that she could not work until the matter was resolved, and that she had to call the phone number on the TNC.  Since that number is the OSC worker hotline, OSC was able to intervene by calling the corporate headquarters of the employer, as well as the store manager, to explain proper E-Verify procedures.  The employee was then allowed to return to work that day and was given the DHS referral notice, with a case number and correct phone number, which allowed her to verify her status with DHS.

St. Louis, MO

On November 5, 2008, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a U.S. citizen and helped him return to work.  E-Verify generated a TNC when the employer submitted the worker’s information.  Contrary to established E-Verify procedures, the employer failed to generate Social Security Administration (SSA) referral letter.  Instead, the employer told the worker to go to an SSA office to solve the problem and said that he could return to work once the matter was resolved.  OSC contacted the worker’s supervisor and the employer’s HR department.  After we explained the employer’s mistakes, the employer contacted the employee and told him that he could return to work.

Lynwood, CA

On November 17, 2008, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident, originally from Mexico. When the employer was purchased by another company, it processed the worker as a new hire of the new parent company, and submitted a query to the E-Verify system. E-Verify issued a TNC, indicating a discrepancy between the data entered into E-Verify and the information in DHS records. The employer stated that it was unable to print a referral letter, which would have provided the worker with instructions for resolving the E-Verify TNC. Instead, the employer told the worker to go to the local office of the USCIS. At USCIS, she was told there was nothing wrong with her card or her immigration status. Meanwhile, the employer received a Notice of Final Non-confirmation from E-verify, told the worker her documents were false, and terminated her. OSC and the worker called the status verifiers at DHS and gave DHS the employer’s address so DHS could send the employer a "third-step letter". That letter notifies the employer that the worker is work-authorized despite earlier issuance of a notice of "Final Non-confirmation". The employer indicated that it decided to allow the worker to return to work and the employer and working are in the process of negotiating a back wages payment.

Brooks, CA

On November 18, 2008, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Palestine. The employer participates in the E-Verify employment eligibility verification program. When the employer queried the worker’s name, it received a TNC. The worker contested the notice. Normally the worker would be given a referral letter with instructions on verifying his status with the Department of Homeland Security or the Social Security Administration, but according to the employer, E-Verify did not allow her to print a referral letter. Without instructions or a case number, the worker was unable to resolve his E-Verify issue, so he called OSC to prevent DHS from issuing a "Final Non-confirmation." OSC called the employer’s representative and encouraged her to contact customer service for E-Verify. She was then able to initiate a new query, and the worker was able to keep his job.

Charlotte, NC

On November 24, 2008, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a Salvadoran worker with Temporary Protected Status (TPS).  The worker’s employer participates in E-Verify.  E-Verify issued a TNC, which the worker contested.  The employer then printed out the referral notice to the Department of Homeland Security.  Neither the worker nor the employer understood that the referral letter instructs the worker to call a toll-free number at DHS.  Instead, the employer instructed the worker to visit her local DHS office and ask for written proof from DHS that she is work authorized.  The worker visited the local DHS office twice and both times she was told that there was nothing wrong with her employment authorization document but that DHS could not provide anything to her in writing.  Meanwhile, the E-Verify system issued a “DHS no-show” because she did not call the DHS toll-free number within the required eight days.  In response to a hotline call from the TPS worker, OSC contacted E-Verify customer service and joined the employer on the call.  E-Verify explained to the employer that it was not properly following E-Verify procedures, and it needed to initiate a new query.  The employer allowed the worker to return to work.

Tucson, AZ

On November 24, 2008, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen of Mexican ancestry.  The employer participates in E-Verify.  E-Verify issued a TNC for the worker, because she recently married and had not yet notified the Social Security Administration of her name change.  When the worker contested the TNC, the employer failed to initiate a referral to SSA or to provide the worker with a referral letter.  Instead, the employer told the employee to go to the Social Security office.  The worker did go to the Social Security office and had her records updated.  However, because she did not have a referral letter with an E-Verify case verification number, the E-Verify system continued to list her as a TNC, and the store manager took her off the work schedule.  When the worker called OSC, we contacted the employer’s corporate office and explained its mistake.  The employer indicated that the worker would be reinstated and paid for the days of work she missed.

Santa Fe, NM

On December 2, 2008, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved a U.S. citizen’s job.  E-Verify issued a TNC and employer issued the worker a referral to SSA.  SSA updated its records to reflect the worker’s married name, but told her it could not access the E-verify system.  Since SSA did not indicate in E-Verify that the worker had updated her records, E-Verify issued a final non-confirmation and the employee was terminated.  The employee did present a receipt from SSA, indicating she had applied for a social security number, but since the receipt did not say she was work-authorized, the employer believed it had to follow E-Verify procedures and terminate the employee.  OSC reported the circumstances to USCIS, which suggested that the employer initiate a new query.  When the employer initiated a new query, the worker was deemed authorized for employment and returned to work.

Tampa, FL

On December 4, 2008, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and assisted a U.S. citizen’s return to work.  The employer uses E-Verify, the electronic employment eligibility verification program administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.  When E-Verify issued a notice of tentative non-confirmation (TNC) for the U.S. citizen, the worker contested and the employer provided her with a referral letter to the Social Security Administration.  However, the employer told the worker that she could not attend orientation or begin working until she had resolved the E-Verify issue.  We explained to the employer that employers may not take any adverse action against a worker who contests a TNC.  The employer then permitted the U.S. citizen to begin working.

Pascagoula, MS

On December 4, 2008, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen.  The employer is a unit of a chain.  The corporate office submitted to E-Verify a query for a U.S. citizen hired by the Pascagoula location, and a TNC notice was generated.  The store manager advised the worker not to contest the TNC.  The corporate office indicated that the worker had to be terminated, because, by not contesting the TNC, the employee was admitting that she possessed an invalid Social Security number.  When we called the store manager, she admitted that she did not understand the TNC and terminated the worker because the corporate office told her to do so.  OSC then called the corporate office to explain that employers may not advise workers not to contest a TNC.  The employer then invited the U.S. citizen to return to work.  The worker said that she intends to contest the TNC when a new E-Verify query is initiated by the employer.

Sacramento, CA

On December 9, 2008, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and assisted an applicant obtain a job.  Previously, the applicant had been hired to work by an employer that participates in E-Verify.  When the employer submitted an E-Verify query that resulted in a TNC, the individual chose not to contest.  Several months later, the individual reapplied for a job with the same restaurant, but the employer was not sure if it could hire him in light of the previous TNC.  We explained to the employer that an E-Verify TNC generated when the individual was hired previously is not an acceptable basis for rejecting the person when he reapplies at a later time.  The employer then hired the applicant and E-Verify generated an “employment authorized” response for him.

Neosho, MO  

On December 22, 2008, OSC assisted an employer to correct its potentially discriminatory use of E-Verify, the electronic employment eligibility verification program administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in cooperation with the Social Security Administration (SSA).  A citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia contacted the OSC worker hotline to explain that he could not resolve a tentative nonconfirmation (TNC) generated by E-Verify because his employer had not provided him with a case verification number.  We contacted the employer and learned that the company’s Neosho branch was unable to print TNC referral notices, which contain instructions about how to resolve a TNC.  We then worked directly with corporate counsel to help resolve the problem, thereby enabling five employees, including the caller, to receive proper E-Verify referral notices.

Austin, TX

On January 5, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a 16-year old U.S. citizen whose last name is listed as his mother’s maiden name on his birth certificate.  Although his mother subsequently married his father, they did not seek to amend his birth certificate or Social Security records.  The teenager entered his father’s last name on the I-9 form when hired for a job.   Predictably, when the employer entered the I-9 information in E-verify, it received a notice of tentative non-confirmation (TNC).  The employee told his mother she would need to have his name changed legally before he could be authorized to work.  OSC explained to the employer it could allow the worker to complete a new Form I-9, using his legal name (i.e., his mother’s maiden name) and invalidate the first E-verify query.  The employer and worker completed a new I-9, and the worker was allowed to begin work.

Charlotte, NC

On January 7, 2009, OSC saved the jobs of three Honduran workers with Temporary Protected Status (TPS).  The workers’ employer contacted OSC because their employment authorization documents (EADs) bear an expiration date of January 5, 2009.  The workers presented the employer with the Federal Register notice issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that automatically extends the employment eligibility of Honduran TPS recipients through July 5, 2009.  However, when the employer called the toll-free number for DHS’s E-Verify program, it was told to reject the workers' documents and fire them.  We reviewed the Federal Register notice with the employer and provided it with the link to OSC’s TPS web page.  The employer then determined that the three workers’ EADs are subject to the automatic extension and indicated that it would retain them.

Houston, TX

On January 22, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention regarding E-Verify, DHS electronic employment eligibility verification program, assisting an employer in following proper E-Verify procedures.  An employer called the OSC hotline inquiring how to notify remote hires that the company participates in E-Verify.  The employer asked if it could mail E-Verify informational materials to the remote hires because they will not be able see the required E-Verify and OSC postings in the company’s workplace.  We directed the employer to the E-Verify Manual which states, that if an employer has difficulty posting E-Verify participation notices due to the setup of its business, it should ensure that all prospective employees receive them with their application materials.  OSC also provided the phone number to DHS’ United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Verification Division for further clarification.

Miami, FL

On January 29, 2009 OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a Honduran worker with Temporary Protected Status (TPS).  The worker's employer contacted OSC because the worker's employment authorization document (EAD) bore an expiration date of January 5, 2009.  The worker presented the employer with the Federal Register notice issued by DHS that automatically extends the work authorization of Honduran TPS recipients through July 5, 2009.  However, when the employer called the toll-free number for DHS’s E-Verify program, it was told to reject the document and fire the worker.  We reviewed the Federal Register notice with the employer and gave it the link to OSC’s TPS web page.  When the employer determined that the EAD is automatically extended, it decided to retain the TPS worker.

Yuma, AZ

On February 4, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention on behalf of a native born U.S. citizen, and saved her job with an employer that participates in E-Verify.  Shortly after the worker was born in California, her mother moved her and her siblings to Mexico.  Her father stayed in the United States and apparently applied for a Social Security account number for his daughter so that he could include her as a dependent on his income taxes.  However, Social Security’s records did not reflect that she is a U.S. citizen.  Also, the surname on her Social Security card is her father’s surname, whereas the surname on her birth certificate is her mother’s maiden name.  The employer submitted several E-Verify queries using variations of the worker’s name, but each time received a tentative nonconfirmation (TNC).  The worker contested the final TNC and received a referral to the Social Security Administration (SSA).  Since the Social Security number showed her father’s surname only (and not the double surname last submitted by the employer), E-Verify then issued a final non-confirmation (FNC), and the worker was terminated by the employer.  The employer was reluctant to enter the worker’s name into E-Verify again.  However, OSC informed the employer that a TNC with an incorrect name will always result in a FNC and that the worker was never actually given an opportunity to resolve the TNC with accurate data.  The employer then indicated it would allow the worker to come back to work.  Meanwhile, SSA indicated that it would update its records within 30 days to reflect the worker’s U.S. citizenship status, based on her birth certificate and court order changing her name.  When the employer ran an E-Verify query using her correct name, it again received a TNC.   However, when the worker contested, SSA corrected its database to reflect that she is a U.S. citizen, and E-Verify issued a final confirmation of her work eligibility.

Bountiful, UT

On February 2, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a young woman with asylum status.  Since the asylee does not understand English well, she incorrectly checked the “citizen” box on the Form I-9 at the time of hire.  In addition, she presented a Social Security card that was restricted, and contained the language “valid only with DHS authorization.”  The employer did not request DHS authorization nor question the worker’s choice of the “citizen” box.  Instead, it ran a query in E-Verify and received a TNC.  When the asylee chose to contest the TNC, she was improperly referred to the SSA because she had checked the citizen box on her I-9 form.  Because SSA could not verify that the worker is a United States citizen, E-Verify issued an FNC and the worker was terminated from her employment.  OSC called the employer to educate it concerning its errors: when it saw the restricted Social Security card, it should have asked for documentation from DHS; and it should have realized the worker was mistaken when she checked the U.S. citizen box.  The employer then indicated that it would rehire the worker, accept acceptable documentation for the I-9 form, and run a new query in E-Verify.

Silver Spring, MD

On February 5, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen.  The worker was hired in September and placed on a project.  In October the employer enrolled in E-Verify.  In December, the worker received an email from the employer advising that December 22 to January 2 would be “blackout dates” and the agency could not guarantee him 40 “on-call” hours during those two weeks.  When he returned to the project after those two weeks, the employer sent him an E-Verify notice of tentative non-confirmation (TNC).  Since the worker knew that E-Verify may only be used on new hires, he refused to sign the TNC.  The worker has an Arabic surname and he believed he was being singled out and discriminated against on the basis of his national origin and perceived citizenship status.  The employer threatened to pull him off the project if he did not comply, and he called OSC.  When we called the employer, it explained that for the purpose of its sales records, it considers an employee “terminated” and “re-hired” whenever a project ends and the worker is placed on a new project.  It also considers an employee “re-hired” for E-Verify purposes when there is a two-week work stoppage.  The employer’s counsel initially explained that the worker was terminated and re-hired, but then acknowledged that the employee, client and agency considered the two-week break to be just a furlough and not a termination.  The company then determined not to run the worker through E-Verify.

Phoenix, AZ

On February 4, 2009, OSC successfully intervened and saved the reinstatement of a permanent lawful resident (LPR).  The LPR, who first contacted OSC through its telephone hotline on January 26, 2009, advised OSC that she had recently been re-hired, had produced her current state driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card to establish her employment eligibility, but was subsequently suspended until she produced an unexpired Form I-551 (commonly known as a resident alien or “green” card).  Upon being contacted by OSC, employer’s counsel initiated an investigation that revealed that the employee had been hired twice over the last eight months.  When first hired, the employee had incorrectly checked the “U.S. citizen” box when completing the Form I-9, and that error had produced an E-Verify TNC.  Apparently, the employee failed to appropriately respond to the notice, and E-Verify issued a final notice of nonconfirmation (FNC), which resulted in the employee’s termination.  The same employer  subsequently rehired the employee and had her complete a new Form I-9 which correctly identified her as a LPR.  When the second Form I-9 was processed through the employer’s employee computer database, the database “flagged” the earlier FNC, and issued an electronic instruction to terminate the employee.  Employer’s counsel reported that the company has now re-programmed its software to ignore the employee’s earlier FNC “flag,” and the local branch has been directed to reinstate the employee.

Paradise Valley, AZ

On February 13, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a naturalized U.S. citizen. When the worker naturalized in 1986, he did not update his records with SSA, so that agency’s records still show him to be a lawful permanent resident.  His employer participates in E-Verify, which issued a TNC indicating that SSA was unable to verify the worker’s U.S. citizenship. The worker then sought to correct his SSA records.  Although the SSA representative had access to DHS records showing the worker is a citizen, she indicated that an original naturalization certificate was needed to update SSA records.  However, the worker has lost his naturalization certificate and DHS takes six to nine months to issue a replacement.  Instead of placing the E-Verify case in continuance, the SSA representative caused E-Verify to issue a Final Non-confirmation (FNC) and gave the worker a note that said “Our records from Homeland Security are showing he is a United States Citizen. As soon as he receives his citizenship certificate we will be able to update his Social Security record.”  Nonetheless, due to the FNC, the employer believed that it was required to terminate the worker.  After the worker contacted OSC, we contacted DHS, which sent the employer a letter advising it to disregard the FNC.  The worker will continue working while he waits for DHS to issue a naturalization certificate.  Once he receives the certificate, SSA will be able to update its records so that the next time an employer queries E-Verify the worker will show as “employment authorized.”

St. Paul, MN

In a telephone intervention successfully completed on February 18, 2009, OSC saved the job of a Liberian beneficiary of Deferred Enforced Departure.  This worker called OSC because her employer had received a FNC notice from E-Verify and told her that she would be fired.  The worker has been working for this employer for several years.  OSC called the employer and learned it had recently changed ownership.  The new owners claim that they terminated and re-hired all of the center’s employees.  The employer said the FNC was issued by the Social Security office and the reason given was “unable to confirm U.S. citizenship.”  When OSC explained to the employer it must have mistakenly entered the worker as a U.S. citizen, it permitted the worker to continue working; invalidated the initial E-Verify query; and initiated a new query as an “alien authorized to work.”  E-Verify then generated a TNC, but the employer will allow her to continue working until DHS updates its database to reflect that she is work authorized until March 31, 2009, when Deferred Enforced Departure is scheduled to expire.

Chicago, IL

On March 3, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident from Poland.  His employer participates in E-Verify, the electronic employment eligibility verification program.  E-Verify generated a notice of tentative non-confirmation (TNC).  The worker contested the notice, but the employer failed to provide him with the referral letter, which includes instructions for resolving the non-confirmation, and told the worker he could not begin working until he resolved the TNC.  We called the employer to explain that it needed to issue a referral letter and allow the worker to continue his employment.  The employer reinstated the worker and issued the referral letter.

Westborough, MA

On March 30, 2009, OSC completed a telephone intervention and assisted a U.S. citizen get reinstated to his job, after he was terminated by an employer that uses E-Verify, the electronic employment verification program administered by Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  The worker was born in Puerto Rico and alleged that the company discriminated against him based on its perception that he was not a citizen.  OSC contacted corporate counsel and eventually the company realized that it had made a typographical error (misspelled the worker’s name) when submitting the E-Verify querry and had also failed to follow E-Verify procedures properly.  The company then re-instated the worker, paid him for the days of work he missed, and indicated that it would re-train employees who have access to E-Verify using our flyer on E-Verify Employer Dos and Don’ts.

Macon, GA

On April 1, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR.  His employer participates in E-Verify. When an E-Verify query was submitted for the LPR, E-Verify generated a notice of tentative non-confirmation (TNC). The worker contested the notice, but the employer failed to provide him with a referral letter, which includes instructions for resolving the non-confirmation, and told the worker he could not return to work until he resolved the TNC.  We called the employer to explain that, under E-Verify rules, it needed to issue a referral letter and allow the worker to continue working. The employer then reinstated the worker, paid him back pay, and issued the referral letter.

Victorville, CA

On April 17, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) originally from Mexico.  The company where the worker is employed was recently purchased by another company that uses E-Verify, the electronic employment eligibility program administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  Although E-Verify confirmed the LPR is work authorized, the employer insisted that her documents were invalid because she showed three different Social Security cards.  All three cards had the same number, but one card was annotated “valid only with DHS authorization.”  Also, one card listed her second first name and second surname, whereas the other two cards listed an abbreviation of both her first names along with her first surname.  Counsel for employer explained that a lot of the employees of the purchased company are undocumented and offer multiple versions of fraudulent documents, so the employer was skeptical of this worker who possessed more than one Social Security card.  The worker said she originally showed only one card but was pressed into showing additional documents, so she showed the other cards to prove she had the same number for many years. OSC explained to employer’s counsel that requesting new or additional documents may be unlawful document abuse.  The employer then decided that the worker could begin work the next day.

Mobile, AL

On April 20, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of an LPR from Trinidad, whose employer participates in E-Verify.  The worker recently re-married and requested that her Social Security card be updated to reflect her new surname.  When the employer entered an E-Verify query with the worker’s current surname, E-verify issued a notice of tentative non-confirmation (TNC).  The worker contested the TNC and the employer referred the worker to the Social Security Administration (SSA).  Since her SSA records had not yet been updated to reflect her name change, SSA could not confirm that her name and number “matched” or that she was employment authorized.  The SSA representative could have indicated in the E-Verify system that the worker’s case was pending SSA action; instead, she indicated that SSA action was complete and the name did not match SSA records.  Consequently, E-Verify issued a notice of final non-confirmation, and the employer terminated the worker’s employment.  We set up a conference call with the employer and an E-Verify representative who encouraged the employer to initiate a new query in E-Verify.  Next, we explained to the SSA representative how to indicate that the query is “in continuance” in the E-Verify system, which will allow time for the worker’s card to be updated.  The worker has now returned to her job.

Katy, TX

On April 21, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and allowed an LPR of Mexican descent to begin employment.  The employer had mistakenly processed the worker as a U.S. citizen instead of an LPR and E-Verify generated a TNC.  The company then told the worker she would not be able to begin working until she resolved the E-Verify issue.  We explained to a company official that it may not take adverse action against the employee based on a TNC.  Within two hours, the worker’s manager was taught how to re-enter the information in E-Verify, the worker was confirmed work-authorized, and she was given a work schedule.                                          

Dumas, TX

On May 8, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and reinstated the job of a refugee from Burma, including two weeks of back pay totaling $988.00. The refugee applied for a position with an employer that utilizes the E-Verify employment eligibility verification program operated by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).  When the refugee received a tentative non-confirmation (“TNC”), he chose to contest the TNC, and was advised to go to the local DHS office to resolve the matter. However, in violation of E-Verify protocol, he was not allowed to work until the TNC was corrected.  In addition, when he chose to contest the TNC, he was not provided with the referral letter advising him to contact DHS by telephone.  Since the applicant did not have the referral letter, rather than attempt to resolve the TNC via telephone, he mistakenly visited the local DHS office. Without the referral letter, however, he could not provide the DHS office with an inquiry identification number, and he could not address the TNC issue.  In addition to the violations above, it was discovered that the TNC was the result of a typographical error (wrong date of birth was entered in E-Verify).   After OSC contacted the employer, the employer indicated it would rehire the refugee and provide full back pay. Additionally, the employer committed to review its E-Verify process to determine whether there were other victims of the company’s violations of the E-Verify protocol/MOU.  

Portland, OR

On May 8, 2009, OSC completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen.  The employer participates in E-Verify.  The worker immigrated with his parents in 1983 and became a U.S. citizen when his parents naturalized in 1990.  E-Verify issued a TNC for the worker, because Social Security’s records did not reflect that he is a U.S. citizen.  The worker contested the TNC and presented his U.S. passport to the Social Security Administration.  However, the Social Security representative failed to update the worker’s account information to reflect his U.S. citizenship, and also failed to notify E-Verify that he had complied with the E-Verify referral.  E-Verify then automatically issued a notice of final non-confirmation.  The employer did not immediately terminate the worker, but instead ran another query in E-Verify.  This time, when E-Verify issued another tentative non-confirmation, the employer gave him an ultimatum: if he did not resolve the non-confirmation in eight days he would be terminated.  He visited Social Security a second time; this time they updated his record to show he was a U.S. citizen, but still did not update E-Verify.  When the worker complained to OSC, we called the Social Security office manager, gave her the reference for the Social Security field office memorandum concerning proper E-Verify procedures, and explained what needed to be entered in the E-Verify system.  The U.S. citizen was then allowed to keep his job.   

Chicago, IL

On May 21, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention allowing a lawful permanent resident (LPR) to return to work after a suspension due to a tentative nonconfirmation notice (TNC) issued by E-Verify, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) electronic employment eligibility verification system. When the employer received the TNC notice, it suspended the employee and told him to resolve the problem.  The LPR asked for a referral letter, but the employer told him that the TNC notice was his referral letter.  OSC contacted the general counsel for the company, and the counsel instructed the employer to allow the employee to return to work and pay him back pay for the days that he was suspended.  It was subsequently discovered that the employer had incorrectly entered the LPR’s date of birth into the E-Verify system. When the employer realized its mistake, it re-entered the employee’s correct information and received an employment-authorized confirmation, thus resolving the TNC.

Atlanta, GA

On May 28, 2009, OSC completed a telephone intervention and assisted a U.S. citizen return to work after E-Verify issued a “final non-confirmation” of his employment eligibility.  In spring of 2008, the 16-year old worker was hired. When a query about him was submitted to E-Verify, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) electronic employment eligibility verification system, a tentative non-confirmation (TNC) notice was generated.  Although the worker contested the TNC, the employer failed to provide him with a referral letter, as required under the E-Verify protocol.  So, the worker took his TNC notice to the Social Security office.  The Social Security representative signed and dated the employer certification page of the TNC, and also signed and dated an SSA printout verifying his name and Social Security number.  The worker then worked all summer, and apparently the TNC remained pending all summer.  This year, he was notified he could not begin work again because on March 10, 2009, E-Verify issued a final non-confirmation.  When OSC spoke to the employer, it learned that the employer had misspelled the worker’s name when submitting the E-Verify query in 2008, and this mistake had caused the TNC.  At OSC’s suggestion, the employer entered a new query in E-Verify, confirmed the worker is employment authorized, and allowed him to begin working.

Fargo, ND

On June 23, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a Sudanese refugee.  The refugee called OSC to complain that her new employer told her there was “something wrong with her I-94.”  (The Form I-94 is an arrival-departure record with handwritten date and immigration status, issued by DHS Customs and Border Patrol.)  When OSC spoke to the employer we learned the employer participates in E-Verify through a designated agent, and the worker had been referred to DHS Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).  Unfortunately, the worker did not understand she needed to call DHS, and, since she failed to call before the deadline, she was classified as a “DHS no show.” OSC called the DHS status verifier, who indicated that DHS would mail the employer a letter indicating the worker is employment authorized and to inform the employer verbally that the worker is employment authorized.  Based on this conversation the employer decided not to terminate the worker.

San Jose, CA

On June 25, 2009 OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and assisted a U.S. citizen in returning to work after an employer would not accept her receipt for a birth certificate as proof of employment eligibility.  The caller was employed by the agency beginning on June 1, 2009 but was told on June 23, 2009 that her Form I-9 had been improperly filled out using two list B documents instead of one List B document and one List C document or a document from List A. When the employee could not find a List C or List A document, she obtained a receipt for her birth certificate. The agency told the employee that she could not work until she provided an actual document listed on List C of the Form I-9.  When OSC contacted the employer’s representative we learned that the employer is an E-Verify participant and they were under the impression that, as an E-Verify participant, they could not accept receipts for verifying the employment eligibility of new hires. OSC pointed out to the representative that the E-Verify manual states that the document requirements are the same for E-Verify as they are for purposes of the I-9 with the exception of the requirement that, for E-Verify, List B documents must have a picture.  Based on this conversation, the agency promptly contacted the employee to tell her she could return to work immediately.

Bakersfield, CA

On June 29, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and assisted a lawful permanent resident (LPR) return to work. The employer participates in E-Verify through a designated agent’s on-line employment eligibility verification system.  When the worker was electronically completing his I-9 form in the designated agent’s system, he did not know what to enter when the system prompted him for his “alien registration number,” so he changed his status to “U.S. citizen.”  E-Verify then issued a tentative non-confirmation (TNC) because he is not a citizen.  Although the worker contested the TNC and went to SSA as instructed in the referral letter, E-Verify issued a final non-confirmation and the employer terminated him.  At OSC’s suggestion, the employer asked the designated agent to correctly enter the worker’s status in its on-line verification system. E-Verify then confirmed that the worker is indeed work authorized, and the employer allowed him to return to work.

Houston, TX

On June 30, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen who received an erroneous final non-confirmation through E-Verify, due to errors on the part of SSA, DHS, and the employer.  The worker was born in California but SSA’s records did not reflect that he is a citizen.  E-Verify therefore issued a TNC and the employer referred the worker to SSA.  However, the employer only gave the worker the signature page of the referral letter; it did not give him the two pages containing instructions for resolving the TNC.  Instead, the employer instructed the worker to call DHS.  DHS could not verify his status since the worker was born in the U.S., but it failed to instruct him to visit an SSA office to resolve the non-confirmation.  Accordingly, E-Verify issued a final non-confirmation and, as a result, the employer terminated the worker.  The worker then went to SSA and received a hand-written note stating SSA had updated his citizenship status, but the employer would not honor the note.  OSC suggested that the employer run a new E-Verify query.  The employer did, and this time E-Verify confirmed the worker is authorized to work.  The worker returned to work and the employer offered to pay him for the three days of work that he missed.

Augusta, ME

On July 13, 2009, OSC successful completed a telephone intervention and assisted a U.S. citizen gain employment. The employer accesses E-Verify, DHS’s electronic employment eligibility verification system, through a designated agent.  The worker received a notice of tentative non-confirmation (TNC), which she contested, and she was instructed to call the number on the TNC, which happens to be the number for OSC.  We called the employer and explained that it must provide the worker with a referral letter in order to enable her to resolve the TNC.  The employer then realized it had incorrectly transposed digits from the worker’s Social Security number when submitting the original E-Verify query.  However, because the employer could not invalidate the query (because the designated agent’s system does not allow queries to be invalidated once the TNC is contested), it contacted the designated agent to resolve the problem.  The employment agency said that it would process the worker for job assignments and would not act on any erroneous final non-confirmation generated from the invalid query.

Dallas, TX

On July 15, 2009, OSC successfully completed an intervention and saved the job of a LPR who was terminated after E-Verify generated an erroneous final non-confirmation.  The employer entered a query into E-Verify using the worker’s surname as it appeared on his permanent resident card (the card only showed the second of his two surnames).  E-Verify issued a TNC because SSA records indicated only the first of his two surnames.  The employee contested the TNC and visited the Social Security Administration, which updated its records to reflect both of the worker’s surnames.  Apparently, however, the employer failed to activate a SSA referral in E-Verify.  Therefore, the change in SSA records was not captured by E-Verify, and the worker received a final non-confirmation and his employment was terminated.  After consulting with E-Verify customer service, OSC suggested that the employer enter a new E-Verify query with the worker’s complete surname.  When the employer entered this new query, E-Verify confirmed that the worker was employment authorized.  The worker returned to work, and the employer compensated him for the 10 days of work that he missed.

Brookhaven, MS

On July 16, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen who was terminated from his job after receiving an erroneous E-Verify Final Non-confirmation. The employer does not access E-Verify directly through the DHS website; rather, it uses a designated agent’s program that combines the  I-9 and E-verify processes.  Somehow, the E-Verify notices generated by the designated agent’s system were different from the actual query entered into E-Verify.  Although all the data on the notices was correct, the E-Verify query contained the wrong year of birth for the worker; hence, E-Verify generated a TNC.  After contesting the TNC, the worker received an SSA Referral Notice and visited his local SSA office. The SSA representative gave the worker a printout verifying his SSN, but failed to update the worker’s case in EV-Star, the SSA system that interfaces with E-Verify.   Neither the employer nor SSA realized data had been entered incorrectly into E-Verify, so they did not know the Final Non-confirmation was erroneous. The human resources representative and immigration attorney for the company both determined the worker must be terminated due to the final non-confirmation.  OSC reached out to representatives of E-Verify, SSA and the designated agent in order to determine the source of the problem. The employer rehired the worker and paid him for the days missed.

Phoenix, AZ

On August 10, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a Vietnamese-born U.S. citizen.  As a result of OSC’s actions, the employer reinstated the worker and gave her back pay for the eight weeks of work she missed.   When the worker was hired by the employer, E-Verify issued a notice of tentative non-confirmation (TNC), and the employer told the worker she could not begin working until she resolved the TNC.  The employer also failed to provide the worker with a referral letter with instructions for resolving the TNC.  When the worker visited the Social Security Office (SSA) she brought a copy of her naturalization certificate and was told that SSA would not update her record without an original naturalization certificate.  SSA erroneously did not place the worker’s E-Verify case “in continuance”, and a final non-confirmation (FNC)  was issued because SSA’s database showed the worker as a LPR and DHS’s database did not reflect the fact that she became a citizen at age 9 in 1974.  Upon learning of the situation, we convinced DHS to notify the employer that the worker is work-authorized and it voluntarily undertook corrective action to remedy the problem.

Fort Meyers, FL

On August 14, 2009, OSC successfully resolved a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen who received an erroneous E-Verify FNC.  The worker prefers an alternate spelling of her first name (“Cinde” instead of “Cindy”) and she originally entered the alternate spelling on her electronic I-9 form.  When she received a TNC, she asked the employer to correct the spelling of her first name.  However, the employer uses a designated agent’s electronic system for its I-9 and E-Verify processes that does not allow corrections once the TNC has been printed.  Nonetheless, the worker did visit the SSA office with her referral letter, and updated her record to reflect her married surname.  Even though SSA’s records were corrected to reflect her current legal name, she received the FNC due to the misspelling of her first name in the E-Verify query.  The employer then terminated her.  We called the employer to explain its mistake, and the employer indicated it would rehire the worker.

Pittsburgh, PA

On August 20, 2009, OSC successfully intervened and assisted a U.S. citizen return to work. The U.S. citizen contacted OSC for assistance after being advised by the employer that she would not be referred for possible employment until she “cleared” her E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation (TNC).  OSC contacted the company’s counsel, who concurred that the worker is entitled to work during the TNC challenge period and indicated that the worker would be reinstated.

Hudson, MA

On August 26, 2009, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) successfully completed a telephone intervention saving the job of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) and assisted an employer rectify its E-Verify practices.  The worker’s employer participates in E-Verify, the electronic employment eligibility verification system administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  When the LPR was hired, the company ran an E-Verify query for him, and received a DHS tentative nonconfirmation (TNC).  The company refused to allow the worker to work until after the TNC was resolved and, even though the worker had contested the TNC, and failed to provide the worker with a referral letter containing instructions for resolving the TNC.  After the worker contacted OSC, we called the DHS Status Verification Operations unit, the entity responsible for resolving DHS TNCs, and learned that an error on DHS’s part caused the TNC to be generated.  When the LPR arrived in the United States in early August 2009, a U.S. Customs and Border official inspected the LPR’s passport, stamped it and wrote an incorrect A-number on it that was off by one digit.  The employer then used the incorrect A-number to run the E-verify query, triggering the TNC.  The DHS Status Verification Operations unit corrected the record immediately and we referred the employer to DHS’s E-Verify policies for guidance on proper E-Verify procedures.  The employer indicated it would follow proper E-Verify procedures in the future by allowing employees to work while contesting their TNCs and by providing workers with referral letters to allow them to take the proper steps to resolve their TNCs.

Spokane, WA

On August 27, 2009, OSC successfully completed a telephone intervention and saved the job of a U.S. citizen who erroneously received an E-Verify final non-confirmation.  The employer participates in E-Verify through a designated agent.  The referral letter issued by the designated agent indicated the query was properly entered into E-Verify, but the information entered by the employer into E-Verify was different from the query printed on the referral letter.  The actual query included the suffix on the worker’s last name (“III”), even though E-Verify instructions state that suffixes should not be included.  The worker went to the Social Security Administration (SSA) to correct the problem, but SSA failed to enter anything into the E-Verify system, and a final non-confirmation was issued.  The employer then told the worker that he would be suspended without pay until his E-Verify issue was resolved.  We reported the issue to USCIS and suggested that the designated agent re-enter the query without the suffix.  When the designated agent re-entered the query, E-Verify confirmed that the worker is employment eligible.  The designated agent said that it would investigate how the discrepancy between the referral letter and the E-Verify query arose, because this discrepancy can lead to erroneous final non-confirmations.  We also contacted its SSA liaison because SSA did not follow proper E-Verify procedures, and the SSA liaison will recommend that the Spokane office receive additional E-Verify training.

>