In the Federal Register yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded their Social Security "No-Match" regulation which targeted employers with undocumented workers.  This ends a two-year legal battle between the federal government, business groups, labor organizations, civil liberties and immigration rights groups.  United Fresh served as one of the business plaintiffs in this legal battle.

DHS' Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency issued a final regulation on August 15, 2007 governing the Social Security Number No-Match letters that employers receive for withholding employees' Social Security allocations. If an employee's Social Security Number does not match the government record, the Social Security Administration sends a letter to the employer notifying him or her of the discrepancy. Under the No-Match rule - also called the Safe Harbor rule - the SSA would have been required to further include information telling employers that they would be required to resolve discrepancies or face liability.

"For many of our members, the burden of correcting SSA errors is a time consuming process, and in order to comply, they will have to develop new policies and procedures at a great cost to produce industry members across the country," said United Fresh Senior Vice President of Public Policy Robert Guenther.

On September 11, 2007, United Fresh joined six other plaintiffs, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Roofing Contractors Association and the American Nursery and Landscape Association in filing a Motion to Intervene that challenged the regulation on several grounds, including violations of the Regulatory and Flexibility Act and of the Administrative Procedure Act.  Among other claims, the suit cited the severe economic hardship that businesses could endure in order to immediately comply with the regulations.  The groups concluded that further analysis was needed in order to understand the real burden the measure would place on businesses, and that it was incumbent upon the federal government to assure the program be executed correctly.  Subsequent to that effort, the U.S. Small Business Administration, Congress, and groups such as the National Federation of Independent Businesses began expressing concern with this regulation.

One month later, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction in the No-Match litigation, thereby blocking implementation of the rule until the Court had a chance to fully examine it. Since that time, this regulation has continued to be blocked by the courts.  Once this rescission this goes into effect - 30 days from today - the lawsuit becomes moot and is expected to be dismissed by the courts at that time.

"From the outset of this effort," said Guenther, "we have been committed to making sure our members fully understand - and are prepared to comply with - this regulation. At the same time, however, we will continue to oppose processes that create uncertainties and disruptions throughout a broad sector of our produce workforce."