Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the I9 Everify topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
I-9 rules, E-Verify and how to respond to audits versus raids: practical steps for employers
Summary
Presenters explained I-9 retention and reverification rules, when E-Verify is required for remote reviews, the difference between audits and raids, and recommended step-by-step responses including contacting counsel, inspecting warrants, and documenting interactions.
At a July 16 training webinar, presenters from Public Counsel and the California Labor Commissioner’s Office walked through the mechanics of I‑9 compliance and how employers should respond to audits and raids. Sofia Wrench (Public Counsel) and Max Norris (Labor Commissioner’s Office) provided detailed timing and practical measures.
Sofia explained I‑9 retention rules: if an employee has worked less than three years, employers must retain the I‑9 for three years from the employee’s first day of employment; if the employee worked more than two years, the I‑9 must be kept for one year after employment ends. "Most businesses know that they need to complete the form I‑9," Sofia said, and she emphasized employers should confirm that forms are complete and reasonably appear genuine.
The presenters warned that remote document review requires E‑Verify; using E‑Verify may require keeping copies of documents with an employee’s photo. "If you are reviewing documents remotely, you must use E‑Verify," Sofia said, and noted some employers choose not to use it due to past issues.
The webinar distinguished audits from raids: audits involve notice (typically a three‑day window to respond) and an employer can bring documents to the agency, while raids are warrant‑driven, no‑notice actions where officers may secure exits and execute a judicial warrant. Sofia advised: request to see a warrant, contact legal counsel immediately, do not consent to searches of private areas without a judicial warrant, and document and record the encounter.
On internal compliance, presenters recommended routine (non‑discriminatory) I‑9 audits to ensure completeness but cautioned employers that auditing employees based on race, national origin or presumed status is illegal and could constitute discrimination.
Presenters also described common audit triggers — mismatches between workers on site and I‑9s, and unusually high cash payrolls — and noted penalties for violations can range "from hundreds to thousands of dollars," with consistent violators facing possible criminal penalties.
The session closed with links to DLSE resources and the presenters’ offer to share template policies and rapid‑response contact information.
