Compliance Stuff

What is E-Verify? E-Verify is a federal employment verification internet-based system that employers may use to electronically confirm the employment eligibility of new hires. The E-Verify system compares an employee’s information on their I-9 form with the records at the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. All employees must complete a form I-9 by their first day of employment to verify their eligibility to work in the United States. But not all employers are required to use the E-Verify system.   Who Must Use E-Verify? Federal contractors with qualifying contracts must use E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility status of employees. Nine states currently require private employers to use E-Verify: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah. The requirements for private employers vary from state to state. Some states that require the use of E-Verify apply the law to all private empl...

  The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an interesting employment law decision,   E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. v. Carrera . As with the California Wage Orders and Labor Code, the FLSA contains several overtime exemptions. It is the employer’s burden to prove an employee falls under one of these exemptions. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was split with other federal appellate courts as to what evidentiary standard applies to FLSA claims, so the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.  In  E.M.D. Sales,   employees sued their employer for unpaid overtime . The company argued that the employees were exempt from overtime under the FLSA’s outside sales exemption . The federal district court and the Fourth Circuit applied the “clear and convincing evidence” standard . The Supreme Court rejected this approach and ruled that the lower, more employer-friendly “preponderance of the evidence” standard applies. This standard is essentially “ 50% plus a feather ,” and muc...

  The Justice Department   sued   the State of South Carolina today for unnecessarily segregating adults with mental illness in adult care homes, in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Supreme Court’s decision in   Olmstead v. L.C.  The department previously notified South Carolina of its findings of civil rights violations in a   July 2023 letter , which identified steps that the state should take to remedy the violations. “People with disabilities in South Carolina can and must be able to receive services in their own homes, rather than being isolated in institutions,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Civil Rights Division will continue to ensure that people with disabilities can receive the services necessary to enable and empower them to leave institutions, and participate fully in community life.” “The ADA requires publi...

  Takeaways The Ninth Circuit’s decision currently invalidates the federal contractor wage mandate, granting a reprieve to federal contractors nationwide. The incoming Trump Administration is expected to take action addressing federal contractor minimum wage requirements, such as rescinding prior executive orders or issuing new orders. Federal contractors should consult with counsel on the impact of the Ninth Circuit decision and other minimum wage mandate developments, particularly when adjusting covered employees’ wage rates in response to these changes. Related links State of Nebraska v. Su Executive Order on Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors Texas Federal Court Bars Enforcement of $15 Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors Against Three States Tenth Circuit Upholds Court’s Refusal to Enjoin Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Hike Petition for certiorari ,  Bradford v. U.S. Department of Labor Article The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has vacated ...

 State Attorney General follows through on threat.  Last summer, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, thirteen “red state” Attorneys General warned the nation’s Fortune 100 companies that they should stop “reverse” discriminating against individuals on the basis of race or face the consequences. In their letter, the state AGs stated, “Sadly, racial discrimination in employment and contracting is all too common among Fortune 100 companies and other large businesses. In an inversion of the odious discriminatory practices of the distant past, t oday’s major companies adopt explicitly race-based initiatives which are similarly illegal . These discriminatory practices include, among other things, explicit racial quotas and preferences in hiring, recruiting, retention, promotion, and advancement. . . .  The warning letter c onclud...

Within weeks of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions last year, Republican attorneys general for 13 states sent a letter to Fortune 100 CEOs condemning their DEI initiatives in the workplace. They threatened to hold companies accountable for “illegal preferences” in employment and contracting practices. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has made good on that threat by filing the first lawsuit by a state Attorney General against a company for allegedly violating the Missouri Human Rights Act. Bailey asserts that IBM subjects job applicants to unlawful racial and gender quotas and bases employees’ pay and employment statuses on whether they participate in DEI practices that he alleges are discriminatory. “It has come to my attention that IBM has adopted an unlawful policy that blatantly favors applicants of a certain skin color over others, and that managers within the company who refuse to comply with said policy face adverse action,...

  South Carolina employers that employ at least one person in the state have for many years been required to file quarterly reports with South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce (SCDEW).  This Act will “improve the effectiveness of the workforce development in South Carolina.  It will also improve the states responsiveness to industry needs by providing workforce information and analysis to decision-makers and the public.”    New this year, however, employers must also include in those quarterly reports the Standard Occupational Codes (SOC) for each position, along with employee names, social security numbers, number of hours worked, and wages.    Employers that employ fewer than 10 individuals in South Carolina have the option of submitting this information electronically or by paper.    Every employer with at least 10 employees must submit this information electronically, unless a “hardship” exception applies. Employers are onl...