E-Verify Requirement(Updated May 2016)

What is E-Verify?

The E-Verify program was created as a voluntary Internet-based pilot program to help employers verify the work authorization of new hires. It applies to U.S. citizens and noncitizens. Originally known as the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program, the program was renamed E-Verify in 2007. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security Administration.

What is required of federal contractors?

As of Sept. 8, 2009, federal contractors or subcontractors are required to use E-verify to determine employment eligibility of employees performing direct work on the contract and new hires. It applies to federal contracts that contain the Federal Acquisition Regulation E-Verify Clause. It exempts contracts of less than 120 days and valued at less than $100,000 and subcontracts valued at less than $3,000.

Table: States Requiring E-Verify


  State Citation Year Applies to:
1 Alabama H56 2011 All employers, public and private
2 Arizona HB 2779
HB 2745
All employers, public and private
3 Colorado HB 1343
SB139, SB193
All contractors with state contracts
4 Florida Executive Order 11-02

Executive Order 11-116



State agencies, public employers and contractors
5 Georgia SB 529
HB 2

SB 447

HB 87




Public employers, contractors, and subcontractors

Private employers more than 10 employees (phase in)

6 Idaho Executive Order 2009 State agencies and public employers
7 Indiana SB 590 2011 State agencies, public employers and contractors
8 Louisiana HB 342

HB 646



All state and local contractors

Private employers requires to either use E-verify or check multiple forms of identification from the new hire.

9 Michigan     Only Oakland, Macomb, and Ingham counties require public employers to use E-Verify for all new employees. Additionally, country service contractors within Oakland county must use E-Verify.
10 Minnesota   2011 All contractors with state contract worth in excess of $50,000
11 Mississippi SB 2988 2008 All employers, public and private
12 Missouri HB 1549
HB 390
State agencies, public employers and contractors
13 Nebraska L403 2009 State agencies, public employers and contractors
14 New York   2008 The village of Suffern, New York requires any new contractors with the village to use E-Verify for all new employees.
15 North Carolina SB 1523

HB 36

HB 318




All contractors.

Public and private employers with more than 25 employees.

16 Oklahoma HB 1804 2007 State agencies, public employers and contractors
17 Oregon     All county employers within Columbia County
18 Pennsylvania SB 637 2011 State agencies, public employers and contractors with contracts of $25,000 or greater
19 South Carolina HB 4400

SB 20



All employers, public and private
20 Tennessee HB1378
SB 196
All private employers with more than 6 employees must use E-Verify for all new hires or use alternative methods to verify work authorization
Under the new law, employers with 50 or more employees must enroll in and use the federal E-Verify program to verify the work authorization status of employees hired on or after January 1, 2017.
21 Texas RP 80 2014 State agencies, public employers and contractors
22 Utah SB 81
SB 39

HB 251

HB 116




Public employers, contractors, subcontractors

Private employers with more than 15 employees

23 Virginia H 737

HB 1859/SB 1049



State agencies, public employers and contractors with at least 50 employees and a contract worth at least $50,000
24 Washington     Washington does not have a statewide E-Verify requirement. However, there are several cities and counties that have enacted their own legislation to address E-Verify; these include the cities Hoqiuam, Kennewick, Yakima, and Lakewood, as well as Clark, Cowitz, Lewis, Pierce, and Whatcom counties

taken from http://www.verifiedperson.com/products_faqs_20.html

Illinois: Hotels and Motels Must Display Human Trafficking Poster

Posters Available

Under a new law in Illinois, effective July 1, 2017, the owner of a hotel or motel must post a notice informing the public and victims of human trafficking of telephone hotline numbers to seek help or report unlawful activity.

Currently, specified businesses and other establishments must post such notice in English, Spanish, and in one other language that is the most widely spoken language in the county where the establishment is located and for which translation is mandated by the federal Voting Rights Act, as applicable. These include the following:

  • On the premise consumption retailer licensees under the Liquor Control Act of 1934 where the sale of alcoholic liquor is the principal business carried on by the licensee at the premises and primary to the sale of food.
  • Adult entertainment facilities
  • Primary airports
  • Intercity passenger rail or light rail stations
  • Bus stations
  • Truck Stops. For the purposes of this Act, “truck stop” means a privately-owned and operated facility that provides food, fuel, shower or other sanitary facilities, and lawful overnight truck parking.
  • Emergency rooms within general acute care hospitals
  • Urgent Care Centers
  • Farm labor contractors
  • Privately-operated job recruitment centers

The specified business or other establishment must post the notice in a conspicuous place near the public entrance of the establishment or in another conspicuous location in clear view of the public and employees where similar notices are customarily posted. Business or establishments that are required to display this poster that fail to comply with the requirements of this act is liable for a civil penalty of $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense.


Note: This does not require a business or other establishment in a county where a language other than English or Spanish is the most widely spoken language to print the notice in more than one language in addition to English and Spanish.

New Law 
Beginning July 1, 2017, the owner of a hotel or motel must post a notice that complies with the law in a conspicuous and accessible place in or about the premises in clear view of the employees where similar notices are customarily posted.

For the convenience of our customers, All In One Poster Company is offering a laminated 11”x17” English and Spanish Bilingual Poster to help satisfy the posting requirement. You may view the poster by clicking HERE.

The Illinois Department of Human Services offers additional languages.

Click here to read the text of the new law. For more information on the Illinois Human Trafficking Resources Center Notice Act, please click here.

Public Act 099-0099

Massachusetts: Large Employers Must Provide Paid Leave for Veterans on Veterans Day

Employees Must Give Reasonable Notice for Paid Leave

Effective as of July 14, 2016, a new law in Massachusetts requires private employers with 50 or more employees to provide paid leave to any veteran desiring to participate in a Veterans Day exercise, parade, or service in his or her community of residence.

Eligibility and Pay Requirements
Under existing law, Massachusetts employers must grant a leave of absence of sufficient time to allow an employee to participate in such services in his or her community of residence on Veterans Day or Memorial Day to an employee who is:

  • A veteran (as that term is defined under Massachusetts law) or a member of a department of war veteran (as listed in Massachusetts law); and
  • Participates in a Veterans Day or Memorial Day exercise, parade, or service.

Such leave may be with or without pay at the discretion of the employer.However, under the new law, employers with 50 or more employees must grant the leave of absence on Veterans Day with pay if the employee provides reasonable notice for such leave.

Under the law, an employer is not required to grant a leave of absence to an employee to participate in such services, on either a paid or unpaid basis, if the services of the employee are essential and critical to the public health or safety and determined to be essential to the safety and security of each such employer or its property.

Click here to read the text of the law.


Massachusetts Prohibits Gender Identity Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation

Law Effective October 1, 2016

A new law in Massachusetts, effective October 1, 2016, extendsprotections against gender identity discrimination to any place of public accommodation.

The new law provides that an owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement that lawfully segregates or separates access to such place of public accommodation (or a portion of such place) based on a person’s sex, must grant all persons admission to—and the full enjoyment of—such place of public accommodation (or portion of such place) consistent with the person’s gender identity.

Note: The new law specifically gives transgender people the right to userestrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identities.

Click here to read the text of the law. For more information on Massachusetts Law about gender identity or expression, please click here.


Reminder: Guidance Available on Avoiding Employee Misclassification Under the FLSA

DOL Guidance Outlines ‘Economic Realities’ Test

As a reminder to employers, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division previously issued guidance on how to avoid misclassifying employees as independent contractors for purposes of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Economic Realities Test
In order to make the determination of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor under the FLSA, courts and the DOL use the multi-factorial “economic realities” test, which focuses on whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer or in business for him or herself. Each factor of the “economic realities” test is outlined below.

  • Is the Work an Integral Part of the Employer’s Business? If the work performed by a worker is integral to the employer’s business, it is more likely that the worker is economically dependent on the employer. A true independent contractor’s work, on the other hand, is unlikely to be integral to the employer’s business.
  • Does the Worker’s Managerial Skill Affect the Worker’s Opportunity for Profit or Loss? This factor should not focus on the worker’s ability to work more hours, but rather on whether the worker exercises managerial skills and whether those skills affect the worker’s opportunity for both profit and loss.
  • How Does the Worker’s Relative Investment Compare to the Employer’s Investment? The worker should make some investment (and therefore undertake at least some risk for a loss) in order for there to be an indication that he or she is involved in an independent business. The worker’s investment should not be relatively minor compared with that of the employer. If the worker’s investment is relatively minor, that suggests that the worker and the employer are not on similar footings and that the worker may be economically dependent on the employer.
  • Does the Work Performed Require Special Skill and Initiative? A worker’s business skills, judgment, and initiative, not his or her technical skills, will aid in determining whether the worker is economically independent.
  • Is the Relationship Between the Worker and the Employer Permanent or Indefinite? Permanency or indefiniteness in the worker’s relationship with the employer suggests that the worker is an employee. However, a lack of permanence or indefiniteness does not automatically suggest an independent contractor relationship. The key is whether the lack of permanence or indefiniteness is due to operational characteristics intrinsic to the industry or the worker’s own business initiative.
  • What is the Nature and Degree of the Employer’s Control? The employer’s control should be analyzed in light of the ultimate determination of whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer or truly an independent businessperson. The worker must control meaningful aspects of the work performed such that it is possible to view the worker as a person conducting his or her own business.

Most workers are employees under the FLSA, according to the guidance. The text of the guidance is available by clicking here. Additional information and resources on employee misclassification, including fact sheets and press releases, are available from the DOL’sWage and Hour Division.

Note: Additional guidance on distinguishing employees from independent contractors for federal tax withholding purposes is available from the Internal Revenue Service.


$600 Million in Workers’ Compensation Liens Filed by Convicted or Indicted Physicians, Providers

Oakland—The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and its Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) today announced that $600 million in liens filed against injured employees’ claims for workers’ compensation benefits have been filed by convicted or criminally indicted parties from 2011 through 2015.

“While California has made great strides in increasing benefits to injured workers, improving appropriate care and reducing employers’ costs, we are pursuing legislation to prohibit criminal and indicted providers from lining their pockets through liens and to address the assignment of liens,” said Christine Baker, DIR Director.

California’s workers’ compensation law allows certain claims for payment of services or benefits provided to or on behalf of injured workers to be filed as a lien against an employer in an employee’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  The filing of a lien generates collateral litigation between the lien filer and defendant (insurer or employer) over the validity of the claim and the necessity, extent and value of any services provided.  The parties may then settle on an amount due or adjudicate the dispute in a lien trial before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.

SB 863 (De León), which took effect on January 1, 2013, included a number of provisions to reduce costs by reducing the volume of lien claims and lien claim litigation in the workers’ compensation system, including the reestablishment of lien filing fees to preclude frivolous lien filings, creation of an Independent Bill Review system to remove most billing disputes from litigation, and restrictions on the ability of third parties to collect on assigned lien claims.

Despite these efforts, the 68 businesses comprising the top one percent of lien filers filed more than 273,000 liens totaling $2.5 billion in accounts receivable on adjudicated cases between 2013 and 2015.  Two of the business owners are indicted and three others have pled guilty.  Legislation is underway to stay liens of physicians or providers who are criminally charged with workers’ compensation fraud, medical billing fraud, insurance fraud, and Medicare or Medi-Cal fraud.

Assignments of Accounts Receivables are proving fertile ground for fraud

The assignment of liens by service providers to those who file and collect on liens are, in essence, the buying and selling of injured workers’ treatments and fertile ground for presenting fraudulent claims.  DIR’s review of filing dates indicates that lien claimants tend to wait until after the primary case is settled rather than seeking early resolution of medical necessity.  Even if lien claimants – especially those who bundle and buy or sell accounts receivables – only make pennies on the dollar, returns can still be high.

DIR is leading an effort to identify and address strategies for improved anti-fraud efforts in the workers’ compensation system. DIR and the Department of Insurance convened working groups in June to gather stakeholder input and evidence of fraudulent activity in the system.  At the direction of the Secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, DIR will be preparing a report on further recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature by no later than Fall of 2016.

DIR protects and improves the health, safety and economic well-being of over 18 million wage earners, and helps their employers comply with state labor laws. Its Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) monitors the administration of workers’ compensation claims, and provides administrative and judicial services to assist in resolving disputes that arise in connection with claims for workers’ compensation benefits.


Illinois Amends Secure Choice Savings Program

Law Aims to Promote Retirement Savings

A new law amends the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Programs Act (Secure Choice).

Secure Choice requires Illinois businesses with at least 25 employees—that have been in business for two or more years and that do not currently offer a qualified retirement savings plan—the option to eitheroffer a private market savings plan or automatically enroll their employees into Secure Choice.

Secure Choice participants will be enrolled into a default target date Roth IRA with a default 3% payroll deduction, but can choose to change their contribution level or opt out of the program altogether at any time. Secure Choice accounts are owned by individual participants and will be portable from job to job.

Implementation of the program is underway, and the program is estimated to be open for enrollment in 2017.

Amended Law
Recent legislation amends the Secure Choice Savings Program Act by providing that (among other things):

  • The total annual expenses (rather than the annual administrativeexpenses) of the trust fund administered by the Secure Choice Board may not exceed 0.75% of the total trust balance;
  • The Secure Choice Board investment policy—and any changes to the investment policy—must be published on the board’s (or state treasurer’s) website at least 30 days prior to implementation; and
  • Small employers’ use of automatic enrollment is subject to final rules from the U.S. Department of Labor, and that utilization of automatic enrollment by small employers may be allowed only if it does not create employer liability under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The law is effective as of July 15, 2016. Click here to read the text of the new law. More information on the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program Act is available from the Illinois State Treasurer.


New Hampshire Law Prohibits Retaliation Based on Flexible Work Schedule Requests

Law Effective September 1, 2016

Under a new law in New Hampshire, an employer may not retaliate against an employee solely because he or she requests a flexible work schedule.

The law does not require an employer to accommodate a flexible work schedule, nor does it create a cause of action for failure to provide a flexible work schedule at an employee’s request.

Note: Employers may have related obligations under other federal, state, and/or local laws, such as the reasonable accommodation requirements of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act or the leave requirements of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

The new law is effective September 1, 2016. Click here to read the text of the law.


Illinois Enacts Child Bereavement Leave Act

Law Applicable to Certain Large Employers

A new law in Illinois allows certain employees to take child bereavement leave. Highlights of the law are presented below.

The law covers (among other entities) employers with 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

Employees are generally covered if they:

  • Work for a covered employer;
  • Have worked at least 1,250 hours during the 12 months prior to the start of leave;
  • Work at a location where the employer has 50 or more employees within 75 miles; and
  • Have worked for the employer for at least 12 months (not required to be consecutive).

State Bereavement Leave
Covered employees are entitled to use a maximum of 2 weeks (10 work days) of unpaid bereavement leave to:

  • Attend the funeral (or alternative to a funeral) of a child;
  • Make arrangements necessitated by the child’s death; or
  • Grieve the child’s death.

Bereavement leave under the provisions above must be completed within 60 days after the date on which the employee receives notice of the child’s death.

Note: “Child” means an employee’s son or daughter who is a biological, adopted, or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis.

An employee must provide the employer with at least 48 hours’ advance notice of the employee’s intention to take bereavement leave, unless providing such notice is not reasonable and practicable.

The law is effective as of July 29, 2016. The text of the law features additional provisions affecting employers and employees.


Rhode Island Law Prohibits Certain Wage Deductions Without Employee Approval

Approval May Be Written or Electronic

Under a new law in Rhode Island, an employer may not deduct or withhold any monies not authorized by federal or state law or by court order from an employee’s wages, without first getting written or electronic approval from the employee.

Permissible Deductions
State law permits employers to make certain deductions from employee wages, including (among other things):

  • Trade union or craft dues or other obligations imposed by a collective bargaining contract;
  • Contributions to a pension plan in which the employee is a participant not required by a collective bargaining agreement entered into between the authorized collective bargaining representative of an employee and his or her employer;
  • Contributions to or for insurance or under an insurance plan for accident, health, or life coverage not required by a collective bargaining agreement entered into between the authorized collective bargaining representative of an employee and his or her employer; or
  • Amounts to be credited to a share, deposit, or loan account in any credit union.

The deductions listed above must be made in accordance with awritten request by the individual employee (see § 28-14-10).

Note: Guidance regarding certain deductions from wages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is also available, along with specific guidance on exempt employees. Remember that when state laws differ from the federal FLSA, an employer must comply with the standard most protective to employees (that is, the one that provides the greater benefit to employees).

New Law
Under the new law, an employer may not deduct or withhold any monies not authorized by federal or state law or by court order from an employee’s wages, without first getting written or electronic approval from the employee.

The law is effective as of July 20, 2016. Click here to read the text of the law.