Court ruling clouds use of E-Verify
by Craig Harris - Jun. 19, 2008 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
Long before Arizona's employer-sanctions law went into effect, 33 custodians at the Staples Center in Los Angeles were fired because the Social Security numbers they gave their employer didn't match those in a government database.

Those employees were fired five years ago because of the discrepancy. But a federal court this week ruled they were wrongfully terminated.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday ruled that discrepancies found in "no- match" letters the Social Security Administration sent to Aramark, the employer in the 2003 case, "does not automatically mean that an employee is undocumented or lacks proper work authorization."

An attorney who represented the janitors says the case raises questions about the accuracy of E-Verify, a key component in Arizona's employer-sanctions law.

"The E-Verify system has the same problems as the no-match letters," said David Rosenfeld, who represented the unionized janitors. "The 9th Circuit agreed the no-match letters were inadequate."

An attorney for Aramark could not be reached.

Marie Sebrechts, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the ruling is not related to E-Verify but instead has to do with a Social Security program.

The Arizona law allows the state to suspend and revoke a business license if prosecutors can prove a company knowingly hired an undocumented worker. As a defense mechanism, businesses use E-Verify, a Web-based program that electronically checks the employment eligibility of new hires.

The Arizona law went into effect Jan. 1, but it is being challenged on constitutional grounds before the 9th Circuit.

Meanwhile, Julie Pace, a Phoenix immigration attorney, said the recent federal ruling should make employers think twice before firing a worker whose Social Security number doesn't match information from the government.

"It's a big deal, and this is the first time it has been decided," Pace said. "Employers should not take adverse action. They have to take appropriate steps and not overreact







http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... s0619.html