Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

New Employment Verification Rules on Indefinite Hold After Court Ruling

By Daniel Schwartz on October 10, 2007
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Late today, a California judge granted a preliminary injunction barring the government from distributing letters to employers notifying them of social security number discrepancies.  These are known as “no-match” letters.  The order also prevents the government from enforcing a rule that would have required employers to terminate employees whose discrepancies weren’t resolved within 90 days.

The New York Times does a good job summarizing the decision. 

Judge [Charles] Breyer chastised the Department of Homeland Security for making a policy change with “massive ramifications” for employers, without giving any legal explanation or conducting a required survey of the costs and impact for small businesses.
……

If allowed to take effect, the judge found, the rule could lead to the firing of many thousands of legally authorized workers, resulting in “irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers.”
….

Judge Breyer found that the Social Security database that the rule would draw upon was laden with errors not related to a worker’s immigration status, which could result in no-match letters being sent to legally authorized workers. “There is a strong likelihood that employers may simply fire employees who are unable to resolve the discrepancy within 90 days,” even if they are legal, he wrote.

Even though the decision is in California federal court, the injunction apparently applies nationwide. In other words, the order enjoins the Social Security Administration from sending notifications to approximately 140,000 employers across the country notifying them of the new rule, which could affect about eight million workers.

Thus, Connecticut employers — for the time being — should not be concerned about the key provision in the new “no-match” rule but should stay tuned for additional developments as the case progresses.  Of course, that does NOT mean that employers can ignore immigration rules; the standard verification rules still apply.

Photo of Daniel Schwartz Daniel Schwartz

Dan represents employers in various employment law matters such as employment discrimination, restrictive covenants, human resources, retaliation and whistle blowing, and wage and hour issues. He has extensive trial and litigation experience in both federal and state courts in a variety of areas…

Dan represents employers in various employment law matters such as employment discrimination, restrictive covenants, human resources, retaliation and whistle blowing, and wage and hour issues. He has extensive trial and litigation experience in both federal and state courts in a variety of areas, including commercial litigation and trade secret enforcement. Dan is the author of the independent Connecticut Employment Law Blog. The blog discusses new and noteworthy events in labor and employment law on a daily basis.

Read more about Daniel SchwartzEmailDaniel's Linkedin ProfileDaniel's Twitter Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Connecticut Employment Law Blog
  • Organization:
    Shipman & Goodwin LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo