Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

New proposed rule from Homeland Security will rescind the controversial no-match rule

By Jim Shore on August 19, 2009
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

One of G.W. Bush’s controversial acts as president was issuing the no-match rule. When employers pay social security taxes, the Social Security Administration (SSA) allocates a certain amount to each employee based on that employee’s social security number. All is well and good when the employer provided numbers match the numbers on file with the SSA. When the numbers don’t match, the SSA sends an aptly named no-match letter. The Bush administration’s no-match rule would have required theDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) to send its own letter to employers along with the no-match letters from the SSA. The DHS letters, rather than simply stating that the numbers didn’t match, would contain a threat to fix the problem or face liability. As a practical matter, most employers receiving such a letter would opt to terminate the employee at issue rather than face liability.

The real problem with this rule is that just because an employee’s social security number, provided on an I-9 card for example, does not match the number on file with the SSA does not mean the employee is an illegal alien. The SSA’s record keeping is not perfect and the no-match might not be the employee’s fault. Moreover, typos are not uncommon in this context and many no-match situations are the result of accidentally switching a single number. In other words, a no-match does not equal an illegal worker. Terminating employment solely on the basis of receiving a no-match letter could expose employers to liability for wrongful termination.

The DHS has a deadline of September 30, 2009 to rescind the no-match rule. If it rescinds the rule before that date it will not run afoul of the bill recently passed in the Senate prohibiting using any part of next year’s appropriated homeland security funds to rescind the rule. The DHS has indicated that it intends to rescind the rule and focus on assuring employer compliance through programs such as E-Verify.

The bottom line for employers – compliance with immigration laws is just as important as ever, but if the rule is rescinded a no-match letter from the SSA should result in a discussion with the employee, perhaps obtaining another copy of their social security card and checking their I-9 form.

Photo of Jim Shore Jim Shore

Jim Shore helps employers and entrepreneurs in a variety of industries address their business needs and toughest labor and employment law challenges. His practice includes employment litigation and trial work; labor-management relations; advice and litigation assistance involving trade secrets, restrictive covenants, data theft…

Jim Shore helps employers and entrepreneurs in a variety of industries address their business needs and toughest labor and employment law challenges. His practice includes employment litigation and trial work; labor-management relations; advice and litigation assistance involving trade secrets, restrictive covenants, data theft and other areas where employment and intellectual property issues intersect; business transactions and reorganizations; and daily human resources and labor advice. Jim also manages sensitive internal investigations for clients. Jim is inducted as a Fellow in the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers for his sustained outstanding performance in the profession.

Click here for Jim Shore’s full bio.

Read more about Jim ShoreEmailJames's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    World of Employment
  • Organization:
    Stoel Rives LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

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

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • 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