U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division
Office ojSpecial Counseljor Immigration-Related
Unjair Employment Practices - NYA
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Main (202) 616-5594
Fax (202) 616-5509

September 30, 2013

BY EMAIL (sweiss@musicroadhotel.com)

Sande Weiss
Music Road Hotel
303 Henderson Chapel Road
Pigeon Forge, TN 37863
Dear Sande Weiss:
Thank you for contacting the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair
Employment Practices ("OSC"). This is in response to your email to OSC, dated July 31,
2013. We sincerely apologize for the delay in our response. In your email, you ask whether your
company may use socialsecurity.gov and E-Verify after ajob offer is made to ajob applicant but
prior to putting the employee on the schedule "to make sure all employees match their SSN." In
addition, you asked whether "ifE-Verify says there is something wrong with the birthdate," you
can require "the employee to resolve the issue, prior to a working schedule."
OSC enforces the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act
("INA"), as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The anti-discrimination provision prohibits citizenship
or immigration status discrimination, national origin discrimination, unfair documentary
practices ("document abuse") during the employment eligibility verification (Form 1-9 and E
Verify) processes, and retaliation for filing a charge or asserting rights under the anti
discrimination provision. More information on OSC can be found on our website:
www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc. Although OSC cannot give you an advisory opinion on any set
of facts involving a particular individual or company, we are able to provide some general
guidelines regarding compliance with the anti-discrimination provision of the INA, 8 U.S.C. §
1324b.
E-Verify is an internet-based system that compares information from an employee's Form
1-9 to data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and Social Security
Administration ("SSA") records to verify the identity and employment eligibility of each newly
hired employee. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), E-VerifY User Manual
for Employers, M-775 (Sep. 2013), available at http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/VerificationlE
Verify/E-Verify Native Documents/manual-employer comp.pdf, p. 4 ("E-Verify User
Manual"). According to the memorandum of understanding ("MOU") that an employer using E
Verify must sign an E-Verify query can only be run after an employee completes the Form 1-9.
E-Verify MOU, Art. I, available at www.uscis.gov/USCIS/E-Verify/Customer
Support/Employer MOU (September 2009).pdf. The law provides that the Form I-9's Section 1,

which is to be filled out before Section 2, is completed by the employee at the time of "hire," 8
C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(1 )(i)(A), defined as "commencement of employment of an employee for
wages or other remuneration." 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(c). However, according to the USCIS
Handbook for Employers, the Form 1-9 may be completed earlier, as long as the person has been
offered and has accepted the job. USCIS Handbookfor Employers, M-274 (Mar. 2013),
available at www.uscis.gov/files/form/m-274.pdf, p. 41.
E-Verify may generate a tentative nonconfirmation ("TNC") response, which means that
the information entered into E-Verify from the Form 1-9 differs from SSA and/or DHS records.
E-Verify User Manual, p. 27. A TNC does not necessarily mean an employee is unauthorized to
work. Id. at 29. For example, an SSA TNC may occur because the employee's date of birth is
incorrect in SSA's records. Id. E-Verify requires employers to provide employees with an
opportunity to contest their TNCs, and if the employee chooses to do so, the employee has eight
federal government work days to begin the TNC resolution process. E-Verify MOU, Art. IILA,
~ 1, 3. In addition, an employer may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold pay, lower
payor take any other adverse action against an employee based on the employee's decision to
contest a TNC or while the TNC is still pending with DHS or SSA. E-Verify MOU, Art. ILC, ~~
9-10. Therefore, an employer cannot require the employee to resolve the TNC as a condition of
being placed on the working schedule. To the extent that an employee alleges that he or she was
not permitted to continue working based on his or her immigration status or national origin-real
. or perceived-this office would investigate the allegation.
In your email, you also inquire about the use of socialsecurity.gov to ensure that a newly
hired employee's Social Security number "matches." SSA provides a Social Security Number
Verification Service ("SSNVS"), which allows registered users (employers and certain third
party submitters) to verify the names and Social Security Numbers ("SSNs") of employees
against SSA records for payroll purposes. SSA, SSNVS Overview, available at
www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnv.htm. SSA will verify SSNs and names solely to ensure that the
records of current or former employees are correct for the purpose of completing Internal
Revenue Service Form W-2 (Wage and Tax Statement). SSA, SSNVS Handbook, p. 4, available
at http://www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnvshandbk.htm.Itis illegal to use the service to verify SSNs
of potential new hires or contractors. SSNVS Handbook, p. 4. We also direct you to OSC's
Name/Social Security number "No-Match" guidance for employers, available at
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc/pdf/publications/SSA/FAQs.pdf;
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc/pdf/publications/SSA/Employers.pdf. As our guidance
makes clear, a Social Security name/number no-match can result from unreported name changes,
inputting errors, or other reasons, and does not necessarily relate to an individual's immigration
status or employment authorization. Thus, to the extent an employee whose information did not
clear socialsecurity.gov is delayed from working, he or she may allege discrimination in
violation of the anti-discrimination provision.

2

We hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact our employer
hotline at (800) 255-8155.
Sincerely,

SeemaNanda
Deputy Special Counsel

3


U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division
Office ofSpecial Counselfor Immigration-Related
Uri/air Employment Practices - NYA
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Main (202) 616-5594
Fax (202) 616-5509

September 30, 2013

BY EMAIL (gendelman@fosterquan.com)

Gary Endelman
Foster Quan, LLP
600 Travis Street, Suite 2000
Houston, TX 77002
Dear Mr. Endelman:
This is in response to your email dated August 29,2013. In your email you ask whether
an employer can "ask ajob applicant now working in HIB status for another company how
much time is left out of the maximum six years in their HIB status." You explain the concern
that "if someone only has a short amount of time remaining out of the maximum allowed six
years in H-IB status, [the company] would be compelled to sponsor them for lawful permanent
resident status which they might not want to do" in a particular instance, even though the
employer does generally sponsor individuals for both H-IB and lawful permanent resident status.
As you are aware, OSC cannot provide an advisory opinion on any set of facts involving
a particular individual orentity. However, we can provide some general guidelines regarding
employer compliance with the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, enforced by OSC, and employer actions under that provision. The
anti-discrimination provision prohibits four types of employment-related discrimination:
citizenship or immigration status discrimination; national origin discrimination; unfair
documentary practices during the employment eligibility verification (Form 1-9 and E-Verify)
process ("document abuse"); and retaliation for filing a charge, assisting in an investigation or
asserting rights under the anti-discrimination provision. 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. For more
information about OSC, please visit our website at: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc.
Citizenship status discrimination may occur when an employer rejects an applicant for
employment based on the applicant's citizenship or immigration status. The class of individuals
protected from this type of discrimination is limited to U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, lawful
permanent residents, asylees and refugees. 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(3)(A-B).
OSC understands your concern to be one of business necessity in that the employer you
inquire about may not be successful in preserving the H-1 B legal status of an applicant based on
(1) the limited time period remaining on the applicant's visa or (2) the imminent expiration of the
applicant's second H-IB visa. H-IB visa-holders are not covered by the INA's prohibition on
citizenship status discrimination. For this reason, employers generally do not violate the anti

discrimination provision when they do not hire individuals based on the fact that the individual
will require sponsorship, or a particular type of sponsorship. Employers that would like to know
whether an applicant would require sponsorship if1ured may ask whether the applicant would
require sponsorship now or in the future without rumling afoul of the anti-discrimination's
prohibition against citizenship status discrimination. See Letter from Seema Nanda, Deputy
Special Counsel, OSC to Nataliya Binshteyn, Attomey, Greenburg Traurig, LLP (Sept. 6,2013),
available at: http: //www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc/pdf/publications/TAletters/FY2013/171.pdf.
Your email does not indicate whether the employer in question will request to see the
applicant's H-1B visa documentation, or whether it will ask the applicant how much time is
remaining under the applicant's H-1B visa so that it can make a detennination as to whether the
applicant will require sponsorship. Under the anti-discrimination provision, document abuse
may occur when an employer rejects an employee's Fonn 1-9 document(s) based on the
individual's national origin or citizenship status. 8 U.S.c. § 1324b(a)(6). Document abuse has
been interpreted to cover the full spectrum of hiring. See United States v. Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc.,
10 OCAHO 1148 at 10 ("our cases have long held that it is the entire selection process, not just
the hiring decision alone, which must be considered in order to ensure that there are no unlawful
barriers to oppOltunities for employment . . . Disclimination can thus occur at any point in the
hiling process."). Therefore, an employer that inquires about the impending expiration of an
individual's employment authorization document, or actually rejects a document based on a
future expiration date, may violate the anti-discrimination provision, depending on the specific
facts of the case. Further, all work-authorized individuals, including H -1 B visa-holders, are
protected from this kind of discrimination. United States v. Townsend Culinary, Inc., 80CAHO
1032 (1999) (relief ordered for all victims of document abuse without distinction as to status as a
"protected individual"); United States v. Guardsmark, Inc., 3 OCAHO 572 (1993) (all work
authorized individuals are protected from document abuse).
Lastly, OSC cautions against making assumptions based on an individual's CUlTent
employment authorization document or CUlTent status; employers may not know whether an
individual is in the process oftransitioning to a different immigration status that would extend or
continue the individual's ability to work in the United States beyond the expiration date on the
employee's CUlTent employment authorization document.
We hope this infOlmation is helpful. Thank you for contacting OSC.

SeemaNanda
Deputy Special Counsel

2


U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Office ofSpecial Counselfor Immigration-Related
Unfair Employment Practices - NYA
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Main (202) 616-5594
Fax (202) 616-5509

September 30,2013

BY EMAIL (bgibson@fragomen.com)
BOlU1ie Gibson
Fragomen, Del Ray, Bernsen and Loewry, LLP
3003 N. Central Ave. Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Dear Ms. Gibson:
This is in response to your letter dated September 17, 2013. Your letter expands upon the
limited question presented earlier this year to OSC by Diana Forbush, resulting in OSC's
Technical Assistance letter dated May 30,2013 (Forbush letter), available at
http://www.justice.gov/crtiabout/osc/pdf/publications/TAletters/FY2013/166.pdf.
In your letter, you seek clarification as to OSC's authority to enforce 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(5), and
question that provision's applicability to entities other than the federal government in connection
1
with its enforcement role. You further explain the reasons why private payroll card vendors rely
on Form 1-9 infofl11ation to comply with banking laws and regulations. Based on your
explariation, we understand that vendors using an electronic payroll card system will only view
employer FornlS 1-9 in limited instances (such as an audit), and primarily rely on "employer
representations to the bank that the employer has valid Forms 1-9 on file for all the employees
enrolling in the payroll card program."
Please note that OSC cannot provide an advisory opinion on any set of facts involving a
particular individual or entity. However, we can provide some general guidelines regarding
employer compliance with the anti-discrimination provision ofthe Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, enforced by OSC, and employer actions under that provision. The
anti-discrimination provision prohibits four types of employment-related discrimination:
citizenship or immigration status discrimination; national origin discrimination; unfair
documentary practices during the employment eligibility verification (1-9 and E-Verify) process
("document abuse"); and retaliation for filing a charge, assisting in an investigation or asserting
rights under the anti-discrimination provision. 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. For more information about
OSC, please visit our website at: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc.

1 We note that you do not mention related provisions, such as 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(d)(2)(C), entitled "Limited use of
system,." This provision of law states, "Any personal information utilized by the system may not be made available
to Govel11ment agencies, employers, and other persons except to the extent necessary to verify that an individual is
not an unauthorized alien." (Emphasis added.)

We use this opportunity to clarify that OSC does not enforce 8 U.S.c. § 1324a(b)(5), or
its related provision, 8 U.s.c. § 1324a(d)(2)(C). Furthennore, we carU10t comment on whether
the practice in question complies with the Bank Secrecy Act or other banking regulations
mentioned in your letter.
However, as OSC noted in the Forbush letter, there are practical considerations as to why
providing Fonns 1-9 to other entities (which may occur in limited instances in the context at issue
here) may be problematic and could result in possible 1324b violations, such as if a third party
asks an employer to request additional or different documents based on the third pariy's review
ofFonns 1-9. Additionally, there may be issues in relying on potentially stale or inconect
information recorded on the Fonn 1-9 if an employer (or third pariy) relies on identity
infonnation for a particular employee at a later date, by which time the employee's address, legal
name, or other identifying infonnation may have changed.
We hope this information is helpful. Thank you for contacting OSc.

Seema Nanda
Deputy Special Counsel

2


U.S. Department of Justice
",

Civil Rights Division
Office ofSpecial Counselfor Immigration-Related
Urifalr Employment Practices - NYA
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Main (202) 616-5594
Fax (202) 616-5509

SEP 2 5 2013
BY EMAIL ANDFIRSTCLASSMAIL(Eileen.scofield@alston.com)

Eileen M.G. Scofield, Esq.
Alston & Bird
One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3424
Dear Ms. Scofield:
Thank you for your letter, dated August 22, 2013, to the Office of Special Counsel for
Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC). In your letter, you seek guidance
from OSC concerning the steps that employers should take when an asylee or refugee worker
presents an Employment Authorization Document or Form 1-766 ("EAD") for initial 1-9
purposes, and the EAD subsequently expires. Specifically, you ask whether OSC will view as
discriminatory, an employer's decision to follow the Form 1-9 instructions and reverify the EADs
of asylee or refugee workers when their EADs expire, in light of the fact that "asylees and
refugees have unrestricted work authorization." (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a) and Immigration
and Naturalization Service Memorandum on the Meaning of 8 C.F.R.a.12(a) as it Relates to
Refugee and Asylee Authorization for Employment, William Yates (March 10,2003)).
OSC is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration
and Nationality Act ("INA" or "the Act"), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which prohibits discrimination in
hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee that is based an individual's national origin or
citizenship status. The statute also prohibits unfair documentary practices during the employment
eligibility verification (Form 1-9) process on the basis of citizenship status or national origin
(document abuse), and retaliation or intimidation. OSC cannot provide an advisory opinion on
any particular instance of alleged discrimination, or on any set of facts involving a particular
individual or entity. However, we can provide some general guidelines regarding employer
compliance with the INA's anti-discrimination provision.
The document abuse provision of the INA prohibits an employer from requesting more or
different documents or rejecting valid employment eligibility verification documents with the
intent to discriminate on the basis of national origin or citizenship status. 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(6).
Document abuse can also occur during the reverification process. See Townsend Culinary, Inc., 8
OCAHO no. 1032 (1999).

When completing the Form 1-9 a worker must select a box in Section 1 indicating his or
her status (citizen, noncitizen national, lawful permanent resident, alien authorized to work).
The selection applicable to refugees and asylees-alien authorized to work-has a field that
requests "expiration date, if applicable." The Form 1-9 instructions provide that refugees or
asylees may write " N/A" in the space provided for the expiration date in Section 1. Form 1-9
Instructions, pp.2, 5.
After employees complete Section 1, they must present documents evidencing identity
and employment eligibility in order for the employer to complete Section 2 of the Form 1-9.
USCIS guidance provides that refugee and asylee workers are not required to present an EAD for
Section 2 in order to complete the Form 1-9. See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
Handbook for Employers, M-274, p. 13. Rather, refugee and asylee workers may choose to
present other documents, such as a driver's license (List B) and unrestricted Social Security card
(List C), to satisfy the Form 1-9 requirements. Id. The Form 1-9 instructions further provide that
reverification of a worker's employment authorization does not apply for refugees and asylees
"unless they chose to present evidence of employment authorization in Section 2 that contains an
expiration date and requires reverification, such as Form 1-766, Employment Authorization
Document." Form 1-9 Instructions, p.3. Thus, an employer that reverifies the employment
authorization of an asylee or refugee that originally presented an EAD upon the EAD's
expiration is following USCIS guidance. OSC would therefore be unlikely to find a violation of
the anti-discrimination provision unless the employer somehow acted in a discriminatory manner
based on national origin or citizenship status.
In your letter you also raise a concern related to refugee and asylee workers who are
unable to present a new unexpired EAD by the date of expiration of their originally presented
EAD. For reverification, an employee may present unexpired documentation from either List A
or List C showing he or she is still authorized to work. Employers cannot require the employee
to present a List A document. Form 1-9 Instructions, p. 5. Thus, a refugee or asylee that
originally presented an EAD could, for instance, present an unrestricted Social Security card at
reverification. Furthermore, the receipt rule would allow a worker to present a receipt for a lost,
stolen or misplaced document for reverification purposes. Form 1-9 Instructions, p. 4. To the
extent an employer requires an employee to present a specific document, such as an unexpired
EAD, for reverification purposes, it may violate the anti-discrimination provision's prohibition
against document abuse.
We thank you for raising these imp0l1ant issues and hope that this information is helpful.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us at 1-800-255
7688 (toll free).

Seema Nanda
Deputy Special Counsel


U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division
Office ofSpecial Counselfor Immigration-Related
Unfair Employment Practices - NYA
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Main (202) 616-5594
Fax (202) 616-5509

SEP - 6 2013
Via First Class Mail and E-Mail (binshteynn@gtlaw.com)

Nataliya Binshteyn, Esq.
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
1750 Tysons Boulevard
Suite 1200
McLean, VA 22102
Dear Ms. Binshteyn,
Thank you for contacting the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair
Employment Practices ("OSC"). This is in response to your email to Byron Wong, dated August
22,2013. In your email, you ask whether an August 6, 1998, OSC technical assistance letter,
pertaining to pre-employment inquiries on whether an applicant will need sponsorship for an
employment visa, "is still clU'rently in effect or if alternative and supplemental guidance has
since been issued" by OSC.
OSC enforces the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act
("INA"), as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The anti-discrimination provision prohibits citizenship
or immigration status discrimination, national origin discrimination, unfair documentary
practices ("document abuse") during the employment eligibility verification (Form 1-9) process,
and retaliation for filing a charge or asserting rights under the anti-discrimination provision.
More information on OSC, including a number of OSC techllical assistance letters on the topic of
pre-employment inquiries, can be found on our website: www.iustice.gov/crt/about/osc.
Although OSC cannot give you an advisory opinion on any set of facts involving a particular
individual or company, we are pleased to provide some general guidelines regarding compliance
with the anti-discrimination provision of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b.
The class of workers protected from citizenship status discrimination under the INA
includes u.s. citizens, lawful permanent residents, refugees, and asylees. 8 U.S.C. §
1324b(a)(3). All work-authorized persons, including non-immigrant visa holders, are protected
from national origin discrimination and document abuse under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324b(a)(1)(A) and
(a)(6), and from retaliation under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(5).
The guidance laid out in the August 6, 1998 technical assistance letter (attached) is still
OSC's position. In that letter, OSC cautions against asking applicants to specify their citizenship
status during the application process because a rejected applicant who is protected from
citizenship status discrimination may perceive that the employer used that information to

discriminate against him or her in making the hiring decision. Instead, OSC recommends that
employers wishing to inquire about sponsorship limit their question to that topic, without asking
specifically about immigration status. Therefore, OSC prefers the question proposed in the 1998
technical assistance letter: Will you now or in the future require sponsorship for employment
visa status (e.g. H-l B visa status)? If an employer chooses not to employ persons who require
sponsorship for an employment visa, such as an H -1 visa, the employer may state in its job
postings that it will not sponsor applicants for work visas.
.
.
We hope this information is of assistance to you. Please feel free to contact us through
our toll free number at 1-800-255-8155 if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,

~~Seema Nanda
Deputy Special Counsel

Enclosure


U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division

Office ofSpecial Counselfor Immigration-Related
Unfair Employment Practices - NYA
- - ---950 Eennsylvania-Ave,-NffC- --- - - - - - -  - Washington, DC 20530
Main (202) 616-5594
Fax (202) 616-5509

August 20, 2013

BY EMAIL
Lesley A. Carr
Lesley A Carr@I1:Qgressive.com
Dear Lesley Carr:
This letter responds to your e-mail dated June 18,2013, to the Office of Special Counsel for
Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC). In your email, you ask whether "pre
population of employee infonTIation in Section 1 of the 1-9 form by electronic 1-9 programs" is
permissible. You mention that Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") has told the American
Immigration Lawyers Association ("AILA") that pre-population of Section 1 is impenTIissible.
Please note that OSC cannot provide an advisory opinion on any set of facts involving a
particular individual or entity. However, we can provide some general guidelines regarding employer
compliance with the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8
U.S.C. § 1324b, enforced by OSC, and employer actions under that provision. The anti-discrimination
provision prohibits four types of employment-related discrimination: citizenship or immigration status
discrimination; national origin discrimination; unfair documentary practices during the employment
eligibility verification (1-9 and E-Verify) process ("document abuse"); and retaliation for filing a
charge, assisting in an investigation or asserting rights under the anti-discrimination provision.
8 U.S.C. § 1324b.
Pursuant to federal law, a person or other entity that hires, recruits or refers an individual for
employment must verify the identity and employment authorization of each person hired, recruited or
referred. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(I)(a). The fonTI designated for that purpose is the F01111 1-9. 8 CFR §
274a.2; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) Handbook for Employers, Guidance for
Completing Form 1-9 (M-274) (Rev. 03/08/13). The PonTI 1-9 specifies that Section 1 is to be
completed by the employee. As the instructions accompanying the fonTI make clear, "Newly hired
employees must complete and sign Section 1 of Form 1-9 no later than the first day of employment."
PonTI 1-9 Instructions, page 1, available at http://www.uscis.gov/files/fo1111/i-9.pdf. Section 1 of the
form itself contains the employee's attestation that "I am aware that federal law provides for
imprisonment and/or fines for false statements or use of false documents in COlU1ection with the
completion of this form" and further highlights that the attestation for citizenship status is under
penalty of perjury. [d. If an individual is unable to complete the Form 1-9 or needs it translated,
someone may assist him or her (preparer or translator). The preparer or translator must read the Form
1-9 to the individual, assist him or her in completing Section 1 and have the individual sign or mark the

Fonn 1-9 by a handwritten signature, or an electronic signature affixed at the time ofthe transaction. 8
C.F.R. 27 4a.2(b )(1 )(i).
We_ a.~sum~ that tIle practice oJpre-populagon of S~ction 1 you refer to involves an employer
relying on previously obtained employee infonnation to complete Section 1 (Le., information obtained
from a job application or infomlation obtained from an interview) and not to information obtained for
Section 1 directly from an employee who is aware that the employer is entering infonnation in Section
1 of Fonn 1-9 as their preparer or translator.
From the perspectiveofthe anti-discrimination provision, OSC discourages the practice of an
employer pre-populating Section 1 with previously obtained employee information. This practice
increases the likelihood of including inaccurate or outdated information in Section 1 (for instance,
from changes in legal name, address, or immigration or citizenship status). Outdated or inaccurate
information in Section 1 may lead an employer to reject documents presented or demand specific
documents for Section 2 purposes. This is particularly tme if an employer does not provide an
opportunity for the employee to review the infomlation that was pre-populated and does not build in a
method for making corrections. Further, if an employer uses the outdated or inaccurate infonnation to
submit an E-Verify query, a mismatch may result because the status or name in govenU1lent databases
conflicts with the employer's outdated information.
Moreover, employers relying on previously gathered employee infonnation may be more likely
to overlook that a particular employee has limited English proficiency ("LEP") because Section 1 has
been pre-populated by the employer. As a result, the employer may fail to provide that employee with
translation or interpretation assistance in order to ensure the accuracy of Section 1 and in order to assist
the employee in understanding the request for documents relating to Section 2.
If you have further questions that pertain to the anti-discrimination provision of the INA, please
contact OSC's employer hotline, 800-255-8155, or visit OSC's website at
www.justice.gov/Cli/about/osc.
We hope this infonnation is helpful. Thank you for contacting OSC.

2:-

SeemaNanda
Deputy Special Counsel

2