April Government Affairs Newsletter
ICE Redefines “Substantive “ I-9 Violations – ICE has made recent changes to policies related to Form I-9 compliance. While the recent surge in federal worksite enforcement has captured headlines, a much quieter policy update behind the scenes appears to significantly raise the stakes for employers facing a Form I-9 inspection. ICE reclassified several common administrative Form I-9 errors as ‘substantive’ violations, significantly raising the stakes for employers facing audits. As a result, mistakes that might have been treated as correctable clerical errors could now be subject to immediate monetary penalties following a Form I-9 inspection. ICE updated its Form I-9 inspection fact sheet online, where the agency’s apparent departure from established practice was revealed: errors that for many years have been classified as technical or procedural violations as now substantive violations. Since 1996, the federal government split I-9 paperwork violations into two categories: Substantive violations that could lead to hiring an unauthorized worker or Technical or procedural violations for administrative or clerical mistakes that could be easily corrected. Critically, immigration law provides employers with a statutory defense for technical failures. If ICE identifies a technical error during an audit, they must provide the employer with a minimum of 10 business days to correct the oversight before a fine can be issued. It was established that many minor oversights could be treated as correctable technical errors, provided the employer acted in good faith. The newly revised ICE fact sheet updates these longstanding definitions, reclassifying several common errors as substantive, including: Missing date of birth, date of hire, Incorrect use of Spanish-language I-9 outside of Puerto Rico, Preparer and/or translator errors. ICE notes that a failure to ensure that the preparer and/or translator’s complete name, address, signature, and date are provided on the Form I-9 at the time of completion in Supplement A is a substantive violation. Missing title of the employer or authorized representative, Failure to date sections 1 or 2, Failure to enter rehire date. ICE notes that failure to provide the date of rehire in Supplement B would now be substantive. Under the new ICE guidance, procedural failures related to the 2023 remote verification procedure are now to be classified as substantive violations, including failing to check the alternative procedure box in Section 2 or Supplement B indicating that remote inspection was used; and failing to be an active E-Verify participant at the time the alternative procedure was used. Many organizations have transitioned to electronic I-9 software to help streamline the onboarding process, but while using the right software can help reduce mistakes, ICE’s updated guidelines reflect that simply digitizing the form is not enough. If an electronic I-9 system’s audit trails, electronic signature protocols, or security documentation fall short of specific standards, the procedural failures of the software may be treated as substantive violations for the employer. The key takeaway for employers is that the margin for administrative error during an I-9 audit has narrowed. Practices that were previously correctable may now result in immediate fines. It is recommended employers continue to conduct routine I-9 assessments, review virtual I-9 procedures, evaluate electronic I-9 systems, and enhance I-9 training. Ensure that HR professionals, managers, or recruiters involved in I-9 completion understand the rules for completing I-9s and the importance of ensuring accurate dates and entries. Source: SHRM HR Daily, 04/10/2026, by Roy Maurer
EEOC Reports Record Recoveries, Signals Continue Enforcement - The EEOC is touting a strong year for enforcement, reporting $660 million recovered for victims of workplace discrimination in fiscal year 2025. This is its third-highest total to date and a signal to employers that enforcement activity remains robust. According to the agency’s latest performance report, the bulk of that recovery — $528 million — came through pre-litigation efforts such as mediation, conciliation, and settlements before a formal cause finding. That figure represents the highest pre-litigation recovery in the EEOC’s 60-year history and a 12% increase over fiscal year 2024. Litigation also contributed $27 million for more than 2,500 individuals, while federal sector resolutions accounted for $104.6 million for over 1,800 employees and applicants. The agency highlighted notable gains in conciliation and systemic enforcement. Conciliation alone delivered $52.5 million for workers, a 24% increase year over year. Meanwhile, systemic investigations generated $55 million in recoveries, alongside a 20% increase in resolutions and a 115% jump in monetary benefits compared to the prior year. These record-breaking recoveries are the result of an Administration committed to upholding our nation’s civil rights laws through colorblind, merit-based, and evenhanded enforcement. The EEOC is proud to deliver on that commitment and will continue to fight discrimination wherever it occurs. Operationally, the EEOC reported increased demand for its services alongside modest efficiency gains. The agency handled nearly 270,000 public inquiries in fiscal year 2025, up almost 9% from the previous year. It processed 88,201 new discrimination charges and resolved more than 90,700 charges — a 4% increase — while reducing its private sector charge inventory by 4%. The federal sector also saw notable improvements. The EEOC reported a 67% increase in appellate resolutions for federal employees, driven by efforts to streamline processes and improve timeliness under current leadership. What Employers Should Do Now - Employers should be aware that enforcement risk remains high, particularly at the pre-litigation stage. It is therefore important to prioritize early resolution strategies, including effective internal complaint procedures and well-trained managers who can identify and escalate issues before they reach the EEOC. Organizations should also revisit their conciliation and mediation approaches. With the EEOC securing record recoveries through these channels, employers that engage proactively and in good faith may be better positioned to manage both financial and reputational risk. The uptick in systemic investigations underscores the importance of auditing workplace policies and practices for patterns that could trigger broader scrutiny. Pay equity reviews, promotion analyses, and consistent documentation practices can help mitigate exposure as the agency continues to emphasize large-scale impact cases. Source: SHRM HR Daily, 04/08/2026, by Rachel Zheliabovskii
AI governance really matters amid evolving compliance landscape – There’s a famous saying you’ve probably heard about building the plane while flying it, but for AI governance pros, there’s no hangar in sight. It seems like building AI (rplane) governance systems will continue to occur on the fly. As AI tools inside the workplace evolve from experimentation and beta testing to a core part of everyday infrastructure, an ongoing challenge faces the pros charged with guiding deployment and use, and managing the technology’s risk. While organizations push forward with AI tools and new processes, the legal and regulatory environment remains laggard, fragmented, and often fluid, making governance a complicated task. “What our clients are dealing with is—in some ways—very similar to what they’ve been dealing with for the past three years, which is uncertainty,” said Proceptual founder and CEO John Rood, who helps companies with AI governance and compliance efforts. “Not only do we not know what government, at what level, will pass what legislation with any reasonable certainty, we also don’t know if legislation is passed, it will actually be put into effect.” Lagging. AI legislation and regulation lags significantly behind development and deployment, according to Rood. State-level efforts in places like Illinois and Texas are continuing to evolve. Colorado’s marquee AI governance law has been undergoing changes and revisions since its adoption. The European Union AI Act has also faced delays and revisions ahead of enforcement. The resulting persistent uncertainty means companies and their compliance and legal teams lack clarity on what rules will exist and how compliance and enforcement will be pursued. Enforcement. Even where rules do exist, enforcement is far from settled. Rood pointed to a recent Cornell University study indicating abysmally low participation in New York City’s Local Law 144, which requires employers using Automated Employment Decision Tools for hiring or promotions in NYC undergo bias audits, share results publicly, and notify candidates of their use. Only 5% of NYC companies that were hiring listed audit results, and another 4% complied with transparency notice requirements. Rood suggested that even those results may be skewed towards compliance, noting that there’s been little enforcement momentum on the part of the city. Vendors. Deployers are asking vendors to carry more weight as uncertainty persists, HR and enterprise customers are increasingly asking their vendors to help them both understand compliance and provide them with stronger governance, transparency and risk controls in order to play fairly. “There’s an evolving expectation in the vendor and in the vendor-implementer relationship, where the implementers or deployers of AI systems are pushing a little bit harder on vendors than they have in past years,” Rood said. Lawsuits against vendors like Workday and Eightfold AI have also raised questions about accountability when AI systems potentially (and allegedly) produce biased or discriminatory outcomes. What’s HR to do? Rood pointed to established frameworks from both the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as a good place to get a compliance and governance strategy that can mitigate risk. “What we advise clients on now…is to really think about a broad compliance program companies need to be implementing—either the NIST AI Risk Management Framework or ISO 42001 or both—because ultimately that’s going to capture 95% plus of any foreseeable regulation,” he said. ISO 42001 is a certifiable international standard focusing on formal management systems governing AI use. The NIST AI RMF is a voluntary US-based framework that offers guidance, but no formal certification. Both are aligned with where Rood suggests the eventual compliance landscape may land. “The actual mechanisms of both the frameworks are like 90% the same,” he said. “ISO tends to be a little bit more process driven. Whereas NIST is more values driven. But functionally…there’s not a lot of meaningful distinctions that really change the way that an organization would implement their governance frameworks based on those differences.” Governance aligned with either (or both) the NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001 is a good first step, but Rood also recommended layering good governance standards and controls based on prominent frameworks for specific industries and incorporating company-specific risks and corporate and employer values as well.
Source: HRBrew.com, 04/07/2026, by Adam DeRose
