Client Alerts & Insights
Watch for “No Match” Letters to make a Resurgence in 2019
September 20, 2018
Authored By:
Employers may recall the “no match” rule most recently from the George W. Bush administration’s efforts to strengthen the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. The Social Security Administration (SSA) sends “no match” letters to employers who submit W-2 forms with names and social security numbers for employees that do not match the SSA’s database information. A “no match” can result when an employee provides a fake social security number to an employer. The practice of sending “no match” letters became inactive during the Obama administration as the E-Verify system expanded and became the preferred method for confirming worker eligibility.
But, in an era where the number of workplace raids, detentions, and deportations continue to increase, it should come as no surprise that employers will once again start receiving “no match” letters in 2019. In fact, during a workplace raid, the Department of Homeland Security can ask an employer for “no match” information.
Nevertheless, employers should take care not to immediately terminate employees with “no match” letters. Doing so puts an employer at risk of being sued, including for claims of national origin, race, or citizenship discrimination. Accordingly, do not ask employees to re-verify their I-9s based only on “no match” letters. And, do not automatically assume that your employee is not authorized to work in the U.S.
“No match” letters also can result from legitimate clerical errors, failures to report a name change due to marriage or divorce, or even identity theft. Employers should therefore compare the “no match” information with their own personnel records to identify any errors and report them. If no errors exist, employers should advise their employees to contact the SSA directly to update their records. Employers also will need to comply with the requirements outlined in the “no match” letter for updating and resolving discrepancies.
In prior guidance, thirty-days was considered a reasonable period of time for employers or employees to take steps to correct discrepancies, and 90 days was the maximum amount of time permitted for resolution. The Trump administration may move towards shortening the period to resolve discrepancies from 90 to 60 days. Employers should always document their efforts to resolve any “no match” issues and apply procedures for handling these letters uniformly to all affected employees.
For more information on this topic, please contact:
Eric Biasden at ebaisden@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4676
Alan Rothenbuecher at arothenbuecher@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4436
Margarita Krncevic at mkrncevic@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.6285
Latest News
Customs Duty Assists: Regulatory Compliance Overview and FAQ
Customs compliance and enforcement defense are high-profile exercises within U.S.-based importers due to the higher-risk regulatory enforcement environment. One of the more complex hot topics facing compliance and legal professionals within importers of record (IORs) is the degree to which “assists” impact dutiable value, and therefore duty burden, in the eyes of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
TSA Authorized Representatives—Emerging Practice of Engaging Freight Brokers and Its Practical Implications
Air transportation safety has long been of critical supply chain importance and geopolitical significance, and that role is growing. Supply chain constraints over this decade have driven a need for adaptation, modal diversification and cost containment. To do so, authorized air cargo providers have increasingly explored new ways to add capacity for regulated surface transportation.
Chameleon Carriers—FMCSA’s “Reincarnated” Rule and Enforcement
As the U.S. DOT and its FMCSA ramp up certain elements of domestic enforcement, regulators are utilizing existing laws and regulations that previously were not often invoked. Enforcement of the English language proficiency requirement is one great example.
What’s Old Is New Again: Broker Liability Insulation from the Case Law in the Post-Montgomery Era
The Supreme Court has spoken in its Montgomery v. Caribe Transport decision, and the brokerage sector, and even shipper and motor carriers, are working toward adapting to this “new liability regime.”