Unless the documents appear to be forged, employers must accept them and verify Social Security numbers with the Social Security Administration -- a process that can take months.
Even if employers receive a "no-match" warning that workers' identities don't correspond to their Social Security numbers, their next move is a matter of dispute.
In June, the Department of Homeland Security issued a proposed rule that companies give workers 60 days to resolve discrepancies in their Social Security records. But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission warned that the proposal could lead businesses to violate nondiscrimination laws, and the rule has not been adopted.
The Cincinnati clothing manufacturer Cintas Corp., which employs 32,000 people nationwide, this fall began to require its workers to resolve discrepancies within 63 days or be placed on unpaid leave. Religious leaders and unions trying to organize Cintas workers protested, and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), incoming chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, warned the company in a letter last month that it may be violating anti-discrimination laws.
Cintas said its new policy was unrelated to the proposed Homeland Security rule. "It got changed this year to ensure that we're in compliance with the law and that our employees are eligible to work in the United States," said spokesman Mike Wallner. Employees can resume work after they resolve the matter with the Social Security Administration, he said.
Cintas is not the only company to take such a step. Last month, Smithfield Foods Inc. fired a few dozen workers at a Tar Heel, N.C., slaughtering plant who had received "no-match" letters. A thousand workers walked off the job in protest, and Smithfield rehired the dismissed laborers, giving them time to resolve the problem.
Labor groups contended that Smithfield, which a federal court ruled in May had harassed union backers, was trying to stifle organizing drives. But Smithfield officials said they were simply trying to do the right thing.
"We're getting battered from both sides," spokesman Dennis Pittman said. "We're just trying to figure out the law and follow it."
Legal experts say the anti-discrimination clauses exist to protect would-be employees often subject to the most scrutiny: low-income people with few documents.
