CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘Social Security’

Employers Beware – Social Security No-Match Letters are Making a Comeback

Posted on: December 26th, 2018

By: Layli Eskandari Deal

Like a bad penny, the Social Security no-match letters will once again turn up and wreak havoc on employers. It is anticipated that employers will once again start receiving these no-match letters, officially called the “Employer Correction Request Notice,” in the Spring of 2019. The SSA will start notifying employers if the W-2 (Wage and Tax Statements) information contains a social security number and a name that do not match.

These no-match letters have been around for a while, but SSA has not issued them consistently. The idea behind these letters is to notify employers when there is a mismatch between the name and the social security number provided and the SSA records. This can happen for a variety of reasons such as simple human error in imputing the information (such as misspelled name or transposed numbers). Of course, this can also result from an employee providing a false social security number or using another individual’s social security number.

On its face, it seems logical that the SSA would want to correct any mismatched information in an individual’s account. However, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has indicated that there is a duty by the employer to investigate the reasons for the discrepancy. ICE has warned that these letters, if uninvestigated, can lead to a finding of “constructive knowledge” of unauthorized employment during an audit.

Unfortunately, employers are stuck in the middle. SSA states that the no-match letters are not addressing unlawful employment but, on the other hand, ICE is indicating that they can use these letters to show constructive knowledge.

So, what should employers do if they receive a no-match letter?

  1. If a letter is received, don’t assume the worst. There may be a simple reason for the mismatch.  Remember, these letters are not providing any information regarding the employee’s employment authorization or immigration status.
  2. Communicate with the employee.  Let the employee know a letter was received and ask then to verify their information.  Give your employee a reasonable period of time to resolve the discrepancy with the SSA. SSA has provided a sample letter to give to employees.
  3. Follow up with your employee and review any documents that they may provide to you. Submit any employer or employee corrections to the SSA.

This year, ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations launched 6,848 worksite investigations. The number of employer I-9 audits has gone up from 1,360 to 5,891 (comparing fiscal year 2017 to 2018). As ICE ramps up their enforcement efforts in 2019, it is necessary for employers to create a plan to address no-match letters with their employees, as well as, making sure that their I-9s are compliant.

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws, please contact Layli Eskandari Deal of the law firm of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP at (770-551-2700) or [email protected]w.com.

Independent Contractor Or Employee?

Posted on: September 20th, 2018

By: Marshall Coyle

The California Supreme Court has established an “ABC test” that could make it extremely difficult for the state’s truckers to use independent contractors. In Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Charles Lee, (Case S222732, April 30, 2018) the Supreme Court endorsed what is called the three-pronged ABC test legal standard.

In Dynamex the lawsuit involved allegations by drivers that Dynamex, a nationwide package and document delivery company, had misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The high state court affirmed the appeals court ruling that supported the workers, endorsing what is called the three-pronged ABC test legal standard.

To be classified as an independent contractor, the ABC test requires that: (A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work; (B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as the work performed.

The state Supreme Court said that in recent years federal and state regulatory agencies have declared that the misclassification of workers as independent contractors rather than employees is a serious problem that deprives federal and state governments billions of dollars in tax revenue and millions of workers of labor law protections.

“On the one hand, if a worker should properly be classified as an employee, the hiring business bears the responsibility of paying federal Social Security and payroll taxes, unemployment insurance taxes and state employment taxes, providing worker’s compensation insurance, and, most relevant for the present case, complying with numerous state and federal statutes and regulations governing the wages, hours and working conditions of employees,” the court wrote in its opinion.

“On the other hand, if a worker should properly be classified as an independent contractor, the business does not bear any of those costs or responsibilities, the worker obtains none of the numerous labor law benefits and the public may be required under applicable laws to assume additional financial burdens with respect to such workers and their families.”

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Marshall Coyle at [email protected].

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Data Breach Standing Case

Posted on: February 23rd, 2018

By: Amy C. Bender

The ongoing issue of when a plaintiff has grounds (“standing”) in data breach cases saw another development this week when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the debate.

CareFirst, a BlueCross BlueShield health insurer, suffered a cyberattack in 2014 that was estimated to have exposed data of 1.1 million customers. Affected customers filed a federal class action lawsuit in the District of Columbia claiming CareFirst failed to adequately safeguard their personal information. CareFirst asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that, since the customers had not alleged their stolen personal data had actually been misused or explained how it could be used to commit identity theft, the customers had not suffered an injury sufficient to give them standing to sue and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The court agreed with CareFirst and dismissed the case. Notably, in this particular breach, CareFirst maintained the hackers had not accessed more sensitive information such as the customers’ Social Security or credit card numbers, and the court found the customers had not alleged or shown how the hackers could steal the customers’ identities without that information. In other words, the mere risk to the customers of future harm in the form of increased risk of identity theft was too speculative.

The customers appealed this decision, and the appellate court reversed, finding the district court had read the customers’ complaint too narrowly. The appellate court reasoned that the customers actually had asserted their Social Security and credit card numbers were included in the compromised data and that they had sufficiently alleged a substantial risk of future injury.

In response, CareFirst filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking it to review the appellate decision. This would have been the first pronouncement on this issue from the high court in a data breach class action lawsuit, a move long-awaited by lower courts, lawyers, and their clients in order to gain more clarity on the application of prior decisions like Spokeo in the specific context of data breach litigation. However, the Supreme Court denied the request (without explanation, as is typical).

As we have reported here and here, courts continue to grapple with the contours of standing in data breach cases. We will continue to monitor and report on developments in this still-evolving area of the law.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Amy Bender at [email protected].