Client Alerts & Insights
Worksite Enforcement Increasing Under Trump Administration
September 29, 2017
Authored By:
With President Trump’s focus on immigration enforcement, employers are seeing an uptick in the workplace audits being conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customers Enforcement (“ICE”). Employers can avoid big fines by developing a comprehensive I 9 compliance program, which should include training, self audits, and an investigation-day action plan. As a reminder, employers must promptly complete a form I 9 for each person they hire or be subject to criminal and civil sanctions. Monetary penalties for knowingly hiring and employing undocumented workers range from $375 to $16,000 per violation, with repeat offenders receiving penalties at the higher end. Penalties for technical violations, which include failing to properly complete a form I 9 range from $110 to $1,100 per violation.
To reduce and avoid such fines, employers should be conducting regular self audits. Self audits help identify deficiencies in the employer’s process and spot trends. Self audits also allow for corrective action and additional training. If you have not self audited your I 9’s recently, you should do so as soon as possible. Self audits should be completed annually and supervised by an attorney. That way, the entire process is conceivably protected. At Benesch, we offer a fixed fee program of $20 per I 9 for review, assessment, and recommended corrections to the form. But, whether you it yourself or as recommended with the assistance of an attorney, you should undertake the self audit as soon as possible if you have not done one recently. It is often too late when ICE comes knocking at your door.
If you have any questions, please contact a member of the firm’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
W. Eric Baisden at ebaisden@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4676.
H. Alan Rothenbuecher at arothenbuecher@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4436.
Latest News
Supreme Court Clarifies Judicial Estoppel Standard in Bankruptcy Nondisclosure Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a rigid rule that often blocked debtors from pursuing claims they failed to disclose in bankruptcy. Courts must now look at the full circumstances before deciding whether an omission was intentional or an honest mistake.
Federal Court Hands Major Win to Tissue Product Manufacturers – FDA’s HCT/P Classification Decision for Umbilical Cord–Derived Product CORDGRAFT Rejected
On March 18, 2026, Chief Judge Brian C. Wimes of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued a significant decision overturning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) classification of Vitti Labs’ umbilical cord–derived product, CORDGRAFT.
Science-Backed But Not FDA-Approved: New Lawsuit Challenges FDA’s Rejection of 114 Health-Related Advertising Claims
A new lawsuit challenges the FDA’s rejection of 114 health-related advertising claims for supplements, arguing that the agency’s narrow interpretation of what counts as an “authoritative statement” unfairly blocks science-backed—but not FDA-approved—claims from appearing on product labels.
When ChatGPT Lies: What the First Wave of AI Defamation Cases Means for Plaintiffs
The common argument made by plaintiffs that differences in alleged misrepresentations are transcended by the center of the gravity of the alleged fraud should not be addressed through the typical approach of just comparing the level of variance of the representations in the case at issue with that in the relevant precedent.