Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employment Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let DLI check I-9 or E-Verify during routine inspections to curb illegal labor
Summary
House Bill 226 would authorize the Department of Labor and Industry to check employers’ I-9 documentation or E-Verify status during routine on-site inspections, and impose graded penalties for failure to keep required records, sponsor and proponents said.
Representative Courtney Sprunger described House Bill 226 — the “Legal Employment and Government Accountability (LEGAL) Act” — as a targeted, constitutionally based mechanism to hold employers who knowingly use undocumented workers accountable and to protect law-abiding contractors from unfair competition.
The bill would authorize Department of Labor and Industry inspectors to review I-9 forms or E-Verify documentation while conducting routine, existing on-site inspections. DLI would assess evidence, provide due process and could levy graded penalties: committee testimony described a first-step enforcement approach that begins with warnings and a per-employee penalty benchmark (testimony referenced a $500-per-employee warning-level figure) and scales to higher fines and possible license-suspension for repeated violations. Fine revenue would be deposited in a special-revenue account to offset DLI’s administrative costs.
Proponents included organized construction unions and labor representatives who emphasized that enforcement protects workers and levels the playing field for employers who follow federal employment laws. “We think that this is an important step forward in making sure that high-road contractors are working on the same level playing field,” said Adam Haight of Labor’s Local 1686.
DLI witnesses said the department has consolidated inspection teams and expects to absorb initial administrative responsibilities without immediate additional FTE; Commissioner Sarah Swanson told the committee that planned consolidation made the approach implementable with minimal new spending, and that any future workload-driven requests for appropriation would come back to the legislature.
Committee members pressed for details about how DLI would distinguish inadvertent record-keeping errors from intentional exploitation, the program’s anticipated workload and the projected revenue in the special-revenue account. DLI officials and the sponsor said penalties would be calibrated and applied after review, and that small employers could use the I-9 process rather than E-Verify if they lacked capacity.
No final action was recorded at the conclusion of the hearing; DLI and the sponsor will provide follow-up details on implementation and fiscal impacts.
