|
|
|
Court Extends Order
That Blocks Government from Implementing Flawed Social Security
"No-Match" Rule |
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 1, 2007
CONTACT:
Lauren Mendoza, AFL-CIO, (202)
637-5212
Maria Archuleta, ACLU, (212)
519-7808 or 549-2666
Stella Richardson, ACLU-NC,
(415) 621-2493
Marielena Hincapié, NILC, (415)
845-3403
Temporary Restraining Order
|
News
release announcing lawsuit |
Pleadings |
SAN FRANCISCO | After a hearing today, a federal judge
extended for 10 days an order that temporarily stops the government
from implementing a new Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) rule that
would cause U.S. citizens and other authorized workers to lose their
jobs, and which would illegally use error-prone Social Security
records as a tool for immigration enforcement. The judge's
order also stops the Social Security Administration (SSA) from
beginning to send notices to approximately 140,000 employers across
the country notifying them of the new rule, which would impact
approximately eight million workers.
"We are pleased that the judge saw the need to continue
to block this rule that would lead to increased exploitation of
workers," said John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO. "More
than 70 percent of SSA discrepancies refer to U.S. citizens, but the
DHS regulation would encourage employers to fire any worker based on
these erroneous discrepancies, especially if she has an accent or is
perceived to be foreign born."
Today's extension of the temporary restraining order
comes as a result of a lawsuit filed in August by the American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
(AFL-CIO), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National
Immigration Law Center (NILC), and the Central Labor Council of
Alameda County, along with other local labor movements. In the
lawsuit, the groups charge that the misguided rule violates the law
and workers' rights, imposes burdensome obligations on employers,
and will cause discrimination against workers who are perceived to
be immigrants.
For years the SSA has sent "no match" letters to
employers if the name and Social Security information reported by a
worker on a W-2 form does not match up with the information
contained in SSA databases. The "no match" letters were never
considered reason to believe that an employee did not have
permission to work in the U.S, and currently employers who receive
"no-match" letters are not required to take any action. In
fact, there are many innocent reasons for such discrepancies such as
clerical mistakes, name changes due to marriage and divorce, and the
use of multiple surnames that are common in many parts of the world.
Under the new DHS rule, employers receiving "no match"
letters might be required to fire employees whose SSA discrepancies
are not resolved within 90 days after the "no-match" letter is
received. If the employer does not respond to a "no-match"
letter, DHS may conclude that the employer had "constructive
knowledge" that an employee was not authorized to work in the U.S.
and prosecute the employer accordingly.
Today's extension was handed down in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
In addition to the AFL-CIO, which is represented by the
law firm of Altshuler Berzon LLP, other parties bringing the lawsuit
include the Central Labor Council of Alameda County, represented by
the ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California, and NILC, as well as the
San Francisco Labor Council and the San Francisco Building and
Construction Trades Council, represented by Weinberg, Roger and
Rosenfeld.
Lawyers on the case include Scott A. Kronland, Stephen
Berzon, Jonathan Weissglass, Linda Lye and Danielle Leonard of
Altshuler Berzon LLP; Jonathan Hiatt, James Coppess and Ana Avendaño
of the AFL-CIO; Lucas Guttentag, Jennifer Chang, Mónica M. Ramírez
and Omar Jadwat of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; Alan
Schlosser and Julia Mass of the ACLU of Northern California;
Marielena Hincapié, Linton Joaquin and Monica Guizar of NILC; and
David Rosenfeld and Manjari Chawla of Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld.
|
|