Latest news with #FormI-9
Time of India
01-08-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Harvard faces federal pressure: Are student jobs and visa records the new front in US immigration checks?
Harvard University will turn over employment eligibility records for nearly 19,000 individuals following a notice from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the university confirmed in an internal email to staff. The request, which covers all individuals hired between July 1, 2024, and July 1, 2025, is part of a broader federal inquiry into employment verification and immigration compliance across US institutions. The move comes at a time when federal agencies are increasing scrutiny of how universities manage employment documentation, particularly for international students. With multiple subpoenas now in play, the spotlight is on whether student jobs and visa-linked data could become the next battleground in US immigration enforcement. What is Form I-9 and why is it central to the inquiry? Form I-9, officially known as the Employment Eligibility Verification form, is required by federal law and regulated by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Every individual hired in the US, citizens and non-citizens alike, must complete Section 1 of the form on their first day of work. Employers then verify original documents, such as a US passport or green card, and complete Section 2 within three business days. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Luxurious Apartments @ ₹1.65 Cr Near HITEC City Honer Signatis Book Now Undo The form serves one key purpose: confirming that the person is authorized to work in the US. Employers are required to retain these forms and provide them when requested by federal authorities. Failure to comply can lead to significant penalties. Scope expands, privacy concerns emerge Initially, Harvard interpreted the DHS request as applying only to employees based at Massachusetts Hall, where the university president's office is located. But DHS later clarified that the inspection applies to all employees hired in the past year, regardless of department or role. The Harvard Crimson reported that the university has asked DHS to ensure that the records will be stored securely, accessed only by authorised personnel, and not shared beyond the agency. While the university is preparing to submit most employment records, it is still reviewing whether documents related to student workers, especially those in student-specific roles, are protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). That decision is still under internal review. Subpoenas highlight broader focus on student records In addition to the I-9 request, DHS has issued three separate subpoenas seeking information about international students, including post-graduation work authorisation, protest participation, and disciplinary history. The Harvard International Office has stated that it is reviewing the subpoenas in accordance with legal obligations and institutional policy. Students affected by these requests will be contacted directly if records must be disclosed. What it signals for students and universities This isn't the first time Harvard's handling of immigration and employment documentation has drawn federal attention. Previous challenges have focused on its authority to host international students and scholars under programs like the J-1 Exchange Visitor visa. As universities navigate complex compliance expectations, the Harvard case puts a spotlight on how far federal inquiries can reach into student jobs, visa sponsorships, and institutional data practices. For students and administrators alike, it raises ongoing questions about the balance between regulatory compliance and campus privacy. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Time of India
30-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Harvard to hand over I-9 records for 19,000 employees under DHS order amid sweeping US federal inquiry
DHS demands I-9 documents as Harvard faces sweeping US employment and immigration inquiry Harvard University has confirmed it will submit I-9 employment verification records for nearly 19,000 current and former employees following a formal request by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), according to an internal email sent to staff. The request forms part of a broader federal inquiry into the University's employment and immigration compliance. The disclosure was announced in an email from Harvard's human resources office, which was sent to current and recent employees. The University said it would comply with a DHS notice of inspection requiring it to produce I-9 records for all individuals employed by Harvard between July 1, 2024, and July 1, 2025, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. Scope of the DHS request clarified Initially, Harvard interpreted the DHS request as pertaining only to employees working in Massachusetts Hall, the University's administrative headquarters and the location of the office of University President Alan M. Garber. However, The Harvard Crimson reported that DHS later clarified the scope of the notice, stating it "applies to all current Harvard employees and any individual employed by the University in the last 12 months. " Form I-9 is a federal document used to verify an employee's identity and their legal authorisation to work in the US. Employers are required to retain these forms and present them upon request to DHS or other authorised federal bodies. University response and privacy concerns According to The Harvard Crimson, Harvard's human resources department said in the email that it had requested DHS to "confirm that the records produced in response to this notice for any individual will be securely maintained by DHS and not shared outside DHS." The University also asked that the documents "only be accessed by DHS personnel authorised to inspect such records, and that DHS will only use these records for the purposes authorised by law. " While the University is moving forward with the release of most I-9 records, it is still evaluating whether information related to student employees—particularly those employed in student-only roles—is protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). As reported by The Harvard Crimson, the University stated it is currently assessing whether such records must be withheld under FERPA. Additional subpoenas and investigations In addition to the I-9 request, DHS has issued three separate subpoenas to Harvard, primarily seeking information related to international students. These subpoenas cover post-graduation employment, participation in protests, and disciplinary or criminal records, according to The Harvard Crimson. On July 8, DHS had already served Harvard with a subpoena for payroll data and an employee roster, along with the I-9 notice. The University was given three days to comply. A University spokesperson declined to comment on the matter when approached on the same day, The Harvard Crimson reported. The Harvard International Office stated on July 10 that it was reviewing the subpoenas and would comply with US laws and institutional policies. The office said, "If the University determines we must provide such records that pertain to you, the University will contact you directly," as quoted by The Harvard Crimson. Wider federal scrutiny of universities This is not the first time Harvard has come under federal scrutiny. The Trump administration has repeatedly targeted the University, raising concerns over international students' presence in the US. According to The Harvard Crimson, DHS has also challenged Harvard's authority to host students and researchers under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. More recently, the US State Department launched an investigation into Harvard's participation in the Exchange Visitor Program, which enables the University to sponsor J-1 visas for international researchers, instructors, and certain students. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Bloomberg
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Harvard Will Comply With White House Demands for Employee Forms
By and Liam Knox Save Harvard University said it would turn over employment forms for thousands of staff to comply with demands from the Department of Homeland Security. The federal inquiry applies to all current employees and any individual who worked for the university in the past year, Harvard said late Tuesday in a message to its community. Federal regulations entitle the government to review paperwork known as Form I-9 documents, which include information on employment eligibility.
Boston Globe
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Harvard provides Trump administration with thousands of employee records under subpoena
'Federal regulations entitle the government to access a U.S. employer's Form I-9 documents and supporting materials,' the email said. The university is one of Massachusetts' largest employers, with Advertisement Harvard is not handing over I-9 records — verification forms that all US employees and employers are required to complete for people hired by a company — for students who were hired for roles that are only open to students, citing a review of a federal privacy law, the university said in its Tuesday email. The subpoena seeking employment documents is separate A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment. This is a developing story and will be updated. Aidan Ryan can be reached at
Forbes
18-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Q2 2025 Employment Law Update: Cannabis, Background Checks, AI & More
The second quarter of 2025 reinforced a critical truth: compliance is no longer about static rules, ... More it's about proactive, integrated decision-making. Legal risk is rising across every stage of the hiring process, from application to onboarding. Employers spent the second quarter of 2025 adapting to a compliance landscape that grew more complex, more technical, and more localized. States continued expanding Clean Slate and Fair Chance protections, while new pay transparency mandates gained momentum across jurisdictions. At the same time, regulators sharpened their focus on cannabis testing policies, biometric privacy, and the responsible use of AI in hiring. Even small shifts, like terminology updates in Form I-9 or new restrictions on housing status inquiries, signaled big changes in how employers are expected to manage risk and support equitable hiring. Staying ahead this quarter required more than policy updates. It required a full playbook revision, one that integrates legal developments into practical, people-centered hiring practices. Criminal History Reform: Clean Slate, Fair Chance, and Beyond States continued to expand Clean Slate laws in Q2, reinforcing a national shift toward automated expungement of criminal records. These laws aim to remove barriers to employment by sealing eligible offenses after a set period, often without requiring individuals to take legal action. Minnesota, Colorado, Washington, D.C., and Virginia advanced their frameworks earlier this year, and implementation timelines vary. (For a detailed review of those laws, see my Q1 2025 article on Forbes.) This quarter, Hawaii joined the trend. Lawmakers enacted Act 5 of 2025, which builds on the state's 2024 pilot program for automatic expungement. The updated law expands eligibility to include possession of Schedule V substances and certain non-conviction arrests dated before January 11, 2020. Expungement is automatic and applies only to arrests in counties with populations between 200,000 and 500,000, such as Maui and Kauai. Employers may see these records disappear from background checks more quickly, particularly in jurisdictions covered by the pilot. Hawaii's move reflects a growing push to deliver second-chance relief more efficiently for low-level drug offenses. Washington State raised the bar with a major overhaul to its Fair Chance Act. Starting July 2026 (or January 2027 for smaller employers), background checks must be delayed until after a conditional offer. Employers must also complete individualized assessments and issue written explanations before taking adverse action based on a conviction. Even current employees receive new protections. For employers, this means retraining teams, revising screening workflows, and carefully documenting adverse action decisions. In Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court ruled that noncriminal citations, like municipal violations, qualify as 'arrest records' under the state's Fair Employment Act. Employers can no longer take action based on citations unless they conduct an internal investigation independent of law enforcement findings. This ruling adds new legal risk and raises the stakes for employers operating in the state. Minneapolis, meanwhile, codified one of the nation's most progressive local protections. As of August 1, 2025, 'justice-impacted status,' which includes arrest, conviction, incarceration, and probation, is a protected class under the city's civil rights ordinance. Employers must now conduct a six-factor individualized assessment before taking adverse action tied to criminal history. Blanket exclusions for convictions are no longer legally defensible. Pay Transparency and Salary History Bans Pay transparency continued to expand in Q2, with new laws taking effect in Illinois, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont. These laws require salary range disclosures in job postings, and in some cases, additional information about benefits or commissions. Employers hiring remotely or across state lines must comply, regardless of where their headquarters are located. Cleveland enacted a sweeping local ordinance that prohibits employers from asking about salary history and requires good-faith pay range disclosures in job ads. It joins other major Ohio cities, like Columbus, Cincinnati, and Toledo, already enforcing pay equity protections. The ordinance covers part-time and temporary roles and applies to employers with 15 or more workers. Washington State refined its Equal Pay and Opportunities Act to reduce litigation risk. New rules, effective July 27, 2025, introduce a five-day correction period for noncompliant postings, allow single wage disclosures when fixed salaries are offered, and clarify that employers aren't liable for outdated third-party listings, provided they act quickly to correct them. This rare employer-friendly update is a reminder that transparency compliance requires both policy and process. Cannabis Legalization: Minnesota Tightens Protections, Kentucky Holds the Line In Minnesota, cannabis compliance entered a new phase with the enactment of Senate File 2370, effective May 24, 2025. This law builds on the state's 2023 cannabis legalization framework (HF 100) by adding procedural safeguards for registered medical cannabis patients. Under the law, employers who are legally permitted to test, typically those in safety-sensitive roles, DOT-covered positions, or federal contractors, must now issue a 14-day written notice before disciplining or terminating a registered medical cannabis user who tests positive. That notice must identify the specific federal law, regulation, or contract that compels the employer to take action, and name the federal benefit or license at risk if the employee continues in their role. Vague safety justifications are no longer enough. Employers must document a clear legal basis for any adverse action, and act immediately only if required by federal law. Most employers in Minnesota have already stopped testing for THC unless an exception applies. But for those who continue, the law adds a compliance burden that requires legal precision, HR training, and updated adverse action protocols. In contrast, Kentucky's medical cannabis law, which took effect earlier this year, has minimal impact on workplace policies. It does not require employers to accommodate off-duty use, permit use at work, or tolerate positive test results. Employers can maintain zero-tolerance drug policies, deny unemployment benefits for violations, and face no new obligations under the law. Together, these states reflect two ends of the compliance spectrum with Minnesota's procedural complexity versus Kentucky's policy continuity. For employers operating in both, the takeaway is clear: one cannabis policy won't fit all. AI and Biometric Privacy: States Define the New Rules for Employers Earlier this year, Congress included a 10-year moratorium on state AI laws in a proposed federal budget bill, but stripped it out before passage. The failed attempt highlights Washington's fractured approach to AI regulation and leaves employers to navigate a growing patchwork of state and local rules. With no national standard in place, states continued to lead the way in Q2, advancing laws that directly impact how employers use artificial intelligence and biometric data in hiring and workforce management. California finalized regulations clarifying that its anti-discrimination laws apply to automated decision systems (ADS), including those developed by third-party vendors. Employers may be liable if AI tools—used in screening, hiring, or promotions—result in biased outcomes, even unintentionally. The rules emphasize employer responsibility for agent actions and flag common criteria like unexplained employment gaps as potential proxies for discrimination. Texas passed the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA), effective January 2026. While primarily aimed at public entities, TRAIGA prevents local jurisdictions from enacting stricter AI laws, gives private employers a 60-day cure period before state enforcement, and limits liability to intentional discrimination only. Colorado amended its privacy law to impose strict rules on biometric data use in the workplace. Starting July 1, 2025, employers must obtain written consent unless biometrics are used for safety, timekeeping, or emergency response. Data must be deleted after 24 months of inactivity or 45 days after its purpose ends. Employers must also maintain biometric-specific breach protocols and notify affected individuals of any compromise. Together, these developments underscore a clear message: AI and biometric tools must be fair, explainable, and defensible. Employers should audit their systems, update vendor contracts, and prepare for broader compliance obligations in 2026 and beyond. I-9 and E-Verify: Technical Changes and Enforcement Trends USCIS released a revised Form I-9 dated January 20, 2025. Although employers can continue using the previous version through 2027, onboarding platforms must reflect the correct expiration date by July 31, 2026. E-Verify was also updated to align with the new terminology. 'An alien authorized to work' now replaces the older 'noncitizen authorized to work' designation. More urgently, DHS terminated parole and work authorization for hundreds of thousands of individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The change created immediate EAD revocations for affected workers. Employers enrolled in E-Verify must run Status Change Reports and may need to reverify or terminate employees lacking valid work authorization. Those not enrolled in E-Verify may receive no notice at all. This situation highlights the growing importance of real-time compliance monitoring. Employers should audit Form I-9 records, avoid acting on assumptions tied to EAD categories, and consult counsel before taking adverse action based on parole status. Miscellaneous but Meaningful Developments Spokane, Washington, became the first city to adopt a 'Ban the Address' ordinance. Effective May 25, 2025, employers may not ask about a candidate's address, housing status, or use of shelters until after a provisional job offer. The ordinance aims to eliminate bias against unhoused individuals. In Oregon, new legislation bans age-identifying questions (like birth year or graduation date) until after an initial interview or conditional offer. Employers must update application forms and screen technology for compliance. New Mexico also entered new territory by enacting the Medical Psilocybin Act on April 7, 2025. The law authorizes regulated psilocybin treatment for conditions like PTSD and depression, with full program implementation expected by the end of 2027. While employers are not required to accommodate psilocybin use in the workplace, the law raises complex questions about disability-related accommodations under the ADA or similar state laws. As with cannabis, the key distinction lies between use and impairment. Employers should reaffirm drug-free workplace policies and prepare for potential accommodation requests involving medically supervised psilocybin therapy. Parting Thoughts The second quarter of 2025 reinforced a critical truth: compliance is no longer about static rules, it's about proactive, integrated decision-making. Legal risk is rising across every stage of the hiring process, from application to onboarding. And with more jurisdictions regulating conduct locally, compliance teams must adapt quickly and holistically. Employers should: Employers that stay informed and agile will not only reduce legal exposure, they'll build trust, support fairness, and improve hiring outcomes in a complex regulatory landscape.
