California’s state legislature is nearing the end of its term, and employers are beginning to glimpse some of the laws that could apply in 2018.  There are multiple proposed bills that prohibits employers’ ability to rely upon or seek information about applicant’s previous wages to set the employee’s pay.  This Friday’s Five reviews the current law – California’s Fair Pay Act, the proposed bills on disclosure of wages, and San Francisco’s local ordinance that recently passed.

1. Current law – California’s Fair Pay Act (Labor Code section 1197.5)

Existing law generally prohibits an employer from paying an employee at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work for work performance that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility that are performed under similar working conditions.  Effective as of January 1, 2017, AB 1676 amended California’s Fair Pay Act, found in Labor Code section 1197.5, prohibiting employers from relying on an employee’s prior salary, by itself, to justify any disparity in compensation.  It is important to note the bill was modified to take out language that would have prohibited employers from obtaining an applicant’s prior salary.

2. Proposed State Bill – AB 1209 – Gender Pay Gap Transparency Act

This bill has been sent to the Governor’s desk during the week of September 11, 2017 to be signed into law or vetoed.  The bill, if signed by the Governor, would require employers with at least 500 employees to calculate the difference between the wages of male and female exempt employees in California by each job classification or title.  The employer would also have to do the same for all board members who are located in California.  The employer would need to report the difference in pay, which would be published on the Internet by the Secretary of State.  Governor Brown has until October 15, 2017 to sign or veto the bill.

3. Proposed State Bill – AB 168 – Salary Information

This bill prohibits employers from replying upon or seeking salary history from applicants.  In addition, employers would be required to provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant.

4. San Francisco local ordinance: Parity in Pay Ordinance

San Francisco passed a local law that prohibits employers from asking job applicants to disclose their salary history.  It also prohibits employers from considering an applicant’s pay history as a factor in determining the level of pay to offer.  The law is effective July 1, 2018, so San Francisco employers have some time to review hiring practices to comply.

5. Proposed State Bill – AB 46 – Wage Discrimination

This bill amends the California Fair Pay Act to make clear that the law applies to both public and private employers.

While the information posted on the Internet on social networking sites is usually public for everyone to see, employers need to be aware of potential claims for using this information in the employment context.  The law, as usual, cannot keep up with the fast-moving technology and change social media sites, so there are many uncertainties in this area.  This Friday’s Five discusses potential pitfalls California employers need to be aware of when conducting background checks.

1. Local City “Ban The Box” Ordinances

Many local cities in California have passed ordinances restricting an employer’s ability to conduct criminal history checks on applicants and employees.  For example, Los Angeles passed the Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance that prohibits employers from seeking criminal background information prior to offering a job to applicants.  The law became effective on January 1, 2017, and the city began enforcing the law on July 1, 2017.  Under the ordinance, employers cannot conduct any “direct or indirect” activity to gather criminal history from or about any applicant using any form of communication, including on application forms, interviews or Criminal History Reports.  This includes searching the internet for information pertaining to the applicant’s criminal history.  Employers must be aware of their local ordinances to ensure that any background research on applicants or employees meets the requirements that apply to them.  More information on Los Angeles’ ordinance can be read here.

2. Federal and State Discrimination Claims

Because people are becoming so comfortable in sharing private information on social networking sites, employers may learn too much information about an applicant that would not and could not have been discovered through an interview. Discovery of this personal information is not unlawful – it is likely that the employer would find out many of these traits at the first in-person interview with the applicant anyway. However, employers cannot base its employment decisions upon a protected category, such as race or gender.   By learning about this type of information of an applicant via their on-line profile, the employer may have to explain that the information did not enter into the hiring decision.

3. Invasion of Privacy Claims

Though one might argue that members of social networking sites have no expectation of privacy (since the information is posted publicly) some applicants or employees might argue that the employer overstepped its legal bounds by using profile data in employment decisions. Arguably, the terms of service agreement may create expectation of privacy for users of site.

State Law Privacy Claims
Employees could potentially argue that using Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, or similar site to conduct background checks violate state statutory law. For example, California and New York have statutes that prohibit employers from interfering with employee’s off-duty private lives. Employees may attempt to argue a public policy violation has occurred in violating a state statute that protects off-duty conduct from employer’s control.

State common law could also create liability. Generally, there are four common law torts for invasion of privacy:

  1. intrusion upon seclusion,
  2. public disclosure of private facts causing injury to one’s reputation,
  3. publicly placing an individual in a false light, and
  4. appropriation of another’s name or likeness for one’s own use or benefit.

As explained by one court, the tort of unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, “depends upon some type of highly offensive prying into the physical boundaries or affairs of another person. The basis of the tort is not publication or publicity. Rather, the core of this tort is the offensive prying into the private domain of another.” (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, comments a, b, at 378-79 (1977)). Generally, the invasion of privacy must consist of (1) highly offensive intrusion (deceitful means to obtain information); and (2) prying into private information (information placed on the web is most likely not private).

4. Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”)

An employer’s use of social networking sites may implicate the FCRA, which places additional disclosures and authorization requirements on employers. In enacting the FCRA, Congress stated its underlying purpose was to ensure that decisions affecting extension of credit, insurance, and employment, among other things, were based on fair, accurate, and relevant information about consumers. The FCRA is intended to provide employee with notice of the background check, authorization to conduct the check in certain circumstances, and disclosure to the employee if the information is used in the employment context.

FCRA Definitions:

  • A “consumer report” is defined at as information (oral, written, or other communication) provided by a “consumer reporting agency” about credit matters as well as about a person’s “character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for…employment purposes.”
  • Another kind of “consumer report,” called an “investigative consumer report” contains information on a consumer’s character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living that is obtained through personal interviews with friends, neighbors, and associates of the consumer.
  • A “consumer reporting agency,” is defined as “any person who regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties.”

Employers who conduct the background checks internally do not qualify as a “consumer reporting agency” and therefore the FCRA does not apply. Employers still need to be careful, however, because state law may apply. For example, California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act is more restrictive than the FCRA.

5. Terms of Service Violations

Social media sites have terms of service posted on their pages that generally prohibit use of their content for “commercial purposes.” Violation of the terms of service would not automatically create a cause of action in and of itself. However, as discussed above, it may be a way for a plaintiff to argue that there is an expectation of privacy in using the site and everyone who signs up to use the site is agreeing to abide by those terms.

I spoke at the Western Foodservice & Hospitality Expo last week regarding marijuana in the workplace and employer’s right to test for and prohibit the use of marijuana.  While employers generally still have the right to test employees for and prohibit marijuana in the workplace, employee’s still have privacy interests that employers need to aware of.  For example, Article I, Section I of the California Constitution guarantees citizens a right of privacy:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

This right to privacy carries over to the workplace, but is even more protected when the employee is conducting personal activities during non-working hours. On top of this general right to privacy, there are statutory protections provided to employees as well.  Below is a list of items concerning employee conduct that cannot be regulated by an employer under California law:

  1. Employers cannot prohibit employees from discussing or disclosing their wages, or for refusing to agree not to disclose their wages. Labor Code Sections 232(a) and (b).
  2. Employers cannot require that an employee refrain from disclosing information about the employer’s working conditions, or require an employee to sign an agreement that restricts the employee from discussing their working conditions. Labor Code Section 232.5.
  3. Employers may not refuse to hire, or demote, suspend, or discharge and employee for engaging in lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises. Labor Code Section 96(k).
  4. Employers cannot adopt any rule preventing an employee from engaging in political activity of the employee’s choice. Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102.
  5. Employers cannot prevent employees from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency when the employee believes the information involves a violation of a state or federal statute or regulation, which would include laws enacted for the protection of corporate shareholders, investors, employees, and the general public. Labor Code Section 1102.5.

Happy Friday!

Employee document storage and retention policies: it is not cutting edge legal theory or management philosophy, but companies that think about and actively develop a plan will save large amounts of money.  The costs savings will come from being able to better defend litigation because the key documents were maintained, and it will come in the form of saving time and effort in searching for and retrieving employment documents when needed.  This Friday’s Five review five best practices for document retention for California employers:

  1. Define what is kept in a personnel file

The terms “personnel records” or “personnel file” are not defined under California law and there is considerable ambiguity about what documents should be keep in an employee’s personnel file.

While not legally binding on employers, there is some guidance from the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) expressing the following view:

Categories of records that are generally considered to be “personnel records” are those that are used or have been used to determine an employee’s qualifications for promotion, additional compensation, or disciplinary action, including termination. The following are some examples of “personnel records” (this list is not all inclusive):

        Application for employment

        Payroll authorization form

        Notices of commendation, warning, discipline, and/or   termination

        Notices of layoff, leave of absence, and vacation

        Notices of wage attachment or garnishment

        Education and training notices and records

        Performance appraisals/reviews

        Attendance records

Employers need to clearly define what they will keep (or not keep) in an employee’s personnel file so that all management understands which documents need to be placed in the personnel file of an employee and where to locate documents pertaining to employees.

2. Time records must be kept long enough and must be in a “user friendly” format

Employers must record and maintain accurate time records under California law. If the employer knows employees are not properly recording their time, the employer needs to enforce a policy to have employees accurately record their time, even if it requires disciplinary action. Also, how can time records be “inadequate”?

  • The records that do not record the employee’s actual time working. For example, the employee records their start and stop time and the same time every day even though the employer knows it changes.
  • Not keeping time records long enough. The statute of limitations can reach back four years in wage and hour class actions, and these records will be the primary issues in most cases.
  • Not recording all required information. For example, employers are required to record employee’s meal periods under the IWC Wage Orders (see section 7 – Records).
  • Not keeping the time records in a manner that is usable. Maintaining records in a form that makes reviewing the records almost impossible is almost equivalent to not maintaining them in the first place. Some thought should be put into how an employer is keeping old time record information and how that data could efficiently be reviewed in the future if needed.

3. No institutional knowledge of document storage and retention policies

Is there one person with full knowledge of the employment policies implemented by the company? Institutional knowledge about the various policies put into place by the company, when they were implemented and why they were implemented is critical knowledge. Also, this information should not reside with just one person in case that person leaves the company.

4. Consider how to store documents and whether certain documents need to be kept separately

Just as I-9 forms are routinely kept separately from other employment documents for employees in order to be able to retrieve them easily if requested by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and to ensure the information is maintained confidentially, employers should consider if any other employment documents should be store separately.

For example, if an employer has arbitration agreements with employees, the arbitration agreements may be store separately for ease of access and easy of verifying which employee has entered into an arbitration agreement.

In addition, employers should consider storing documents electronically.  I’m a big advocate of electronic storage of documents because I believe it is more secure and easier to retrieve the documents, but it there is a matter of preference.  Moreover, federal and state law may regulate whether certain documents (such as time records or I-9s) can be maintained electronically.

5. Consider having a “miscellaneous document” policy

What should employers document? Conversations with employees, reviews, days absent and the reason for the absence, performance issues (both good and bad – see below), etc…. With email and the ability to scan documents or take pictures of documents on a phone, there is almost no excuse not to have everything documented. The only issue preventing employers from documenting issues is not stressing the need to do document, and the press of business.  Employers should have a miscellaneous document retention and storage policy that allows issues to be document and store in a place that can be retrieved later.

Two cases decided in the last two months have further clarified the scope of discovery and plaintiff’s ability to pursue damages in addition to individual damages under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).  The holdings are a bit of a mixed bag for employers, but they offer some clarification into PAGA.  This Friday’s Five is a summary of five issues employers need to understand about PAGA and the new decisions setting out the rights plaintiffs have to pursue representative actions under the statute:

1. PAGA representative actions are different than class actions.

California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) was designed by the California Legislature to offer financial incentives for private individuals to enforce state labor laws. At the time PAGA became law, the state’s labor law enforcement agencies did not have enough resources or staffing necessary to keep up with the rapid growth of California’s workforce. Therefore, PAGA allows aggrieved employees to sue as a proxy or agent of California’s state labor law enforcement agencies in collecting civil penalties for Labor Code violations. The employee must give 75 percent of the collected penalties to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and the remaining 25 percent is to be distributed among the employees affected by the violations.

First, because the plaintiff under PAGA is seeking penalties and not other forms of damages, a one year statute of limitations applies. This varies drastically from the four year statute of limitations that apply to most wage and hour class actions when a Business and Professions Code section 17200 cause of action is alleged.

Second, in Arias v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff does not have to certify a class under PAGA to recover damages on behalf of all the other employees in the representative action.  However, as set forth below, courts are still deciding the scope of PAGA representative actions in terms of discovery rights and manageability issues.

2. Arbitration agreements with class action waivers are enforceable, but representative actions brought under the Private Attorneys General Act are not subject to arbitration and cannot be waived.

Many courts have been upholding arbitration agreements that contain class action waivers, including the California Supreme Court in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC.  That case held that class action waivers are enforceable, following the standards set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.  However, in Iskanian, the California Supreme Court held that PAGA representative actions cannot be waived by employees and cannot be compelled to arbitration.  The Court held that, “we conclude that an arbitration agreement requiring an employee as a condition of employment to give up the right to bring representative PAGA actions in any forum is contrary to public policy.”

3. PAGA penalties are separate from individual damages.

In August 2017, a California appellate court held in Esparza v. KS Industries that PAGA representative actions can only seek “civil penalties” permitted by PAGA.  As set forth above, the civil penalties recovered by a PAGA claim 75 percent must be allocated to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25 percent to the aggrieved employees in the representative action.  The court found that PAGA civil penalties do not include unpaid wages sought by the individual plaintiff.

4. Employers defending PAGA claims must require plaintiffs to explicitly state whether they are pursuing individual damages (which must be arbitrated) or PAGA civil penalties (which cannot be arbitrated).

As the court noticed in Esparza, PAGA representative claims for civil penalties are not subject to arbitration, but claims for unpaid wages based on Labor code section 558 are not civil penalties and can be compelled to arbitration.

If the employee wants to pursue both, the employer should compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual claims and stay the PAGA case pending the resolution of the individual claims.

5. Employers facing PAGA cases must consider filing a motion to sequence discovery early in the case.

In Williams v. Superior Court, a case decided in July 2017, the plaintiff sought to obtain the contact information for fellow California employees who worked for defendant, Marshalls of CA, LLC.  Defendant refused to provide the contact information for the other employees, and plaintiff filed a motion to compel.  The trial court limited the ability of plaintiff to obtain contact information to the store where the plaintiff worked, but denied it as to every other California store, subject to change after plaintiff sat for his deposition and made a showing of some merit to the underlying action.

The California Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s ruling and required defendant to provide the contact information for all California employees:

Our prior decisions and those of the Courts of Appeal firmly establish that in non-PAGA class actions, the contact information of those a plaintiff purports to represent is routinely discoverable as an essential prerequisite to effectively seeking group relief, without any requirement that the plaintiff first show good cause.  Nothing in the characteristics of a PAGA suit, essentially a qui tam action filed on behalf of the state to assist it with labor law enforcement, affords a basis for restricting discovery more narrowly.

The Court was clear, however, that upon a defendant’s motion showing good cause, a trial court can ordered sequenced discovery.   The Court explained:

Marshalls reasons instead that the trial court’s imposition of a merits requirement can be justified under Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.020.  That provision sets out the general rule that the various tools of discovery may be used by each party in any order, and one party’s discovery “shall not operate to delay the discovery of any other party.”  (Id., subd. (a).)  However, if a party shows “good cause,” the trial court “may establish the sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.”  (Id., subd. (b).)  But Marshalls did not file a section 2019.020 motion, and we thus have no occasion to decide what showing might suffice to warrant a court order sequencing discovery.

With the end of summer quickly approaching, this Friday’s Five (and next week’s post as well) covers broad topics employers should review periodically.  Today’s post covers five questions a company operating in California should be asking on a routine basis:

1. Has the company reviewed and updated the employee handbook and related policies?

As discussed in last weeks Friday’s Five about the new court decision on vacation pay in Minnick v. Automotive Creations, an employer’s policies are critical in defending claims.  Vague or out dated policies can create huge amounts of liability for employers. California’s requirements change throughout the year, and it is important that employers have a good relationship with employment counsel so that they are routinely communicating and reviewing the need to update policies based on new case law and legislation.

2. Does your company train supervisors and employees on its handbook and other policies, and does the company standby what it tells employees in these policies?

Legally drafted policies only get your company half of the way there.  Companies need to train managers and supervisors about what the policies mean and how they need to be implemented day-to-day.  Furthermore, the company needs to follow-through with what it tells supervisors, managers, and employees.  For examples, if the company maintains an open door policy, but none of the employees are utilizing the open door policy there could be a problem.  One solution is for the company to start pro-actively having open door sessions with employees to discuss their experience at the company (my post next week will discuss what should be asked during these open door sessions).

3. Has the company conducted a review of a local county and city laws that apply?

State, county and city laws regulating minimum wage and paid sick leave are numerous and California employers need to ensure they have closely reviewed they are complying with these requirements.  As Carl’s Jr. is finding out, noncompliance can have steep penalties.

4. When was the last time the company conducted an internal wage and hour audit internally? When was the last time an external lawyer or other professional reviewed wage and hour practices?

Many companies establish policies or simply continuing using policies from the past that have never been reviewed internally or externally by a lawyer or other professional.  I’ve published an HR audit list that covers a few of the essential areas that must be reviewed to lower a company’s legal exposure in California.

5. Is there an open line of communication with the employer’s payroll company and have specific wage and hour compliance issues been discussed?

The information that must be listed on employee’s pay stub is detailed, but easy to comply with.  A model pay stub published by the State Division of Labor Standards Enforcement can be found here (but note this only lists the state requirements – any other local county or city requirement will also apply).  The model pay stubs does not list paid sick leave, which employers must also remember to list on the employee’s pay stub or other writing provided to employees when they are paid.

Many payroll companies do not review the accuracy of the information listed on the pay stubs they generate, and this burden falls on the employer.  In addition to the California Labor Code requirements of the information that must be listed on pay stubs, the local requirements for reporting the amount of paid sick time available to employees must also be provided.  Employers need to proactively review and discuss these requirements with their payroll companies.

In this Friday’s Five I discuss:

  • new case decision on vacation pay and policies (Minnick v. Automotive Creations)
  • PAGA decision allowing contact information for other employees (Williams v. Superior Court),
  • new Form I-9 released and employers must start using by September 17, 2017 (download here)
  • new Notice of Rights for Victims of Domestic Violence/sexual assault/stalking required to be provided to California employees effective July 1, 2017 (download here), and
  • new law signed by Governor Brown prohibiting inquiries into litigant’s immigration status.

For good or bad, the use of AI is already prevalent and its potential uses are expanding quickly, including to the workplace.  LinkedIn is currently suing a competitor, hiQ Labs, for use of information “scraped” from the social network’s site and used for AI analysis.  hiQ uses the information gleaned from LinkedIn to predict whether employee are likely to leave their jobs.  While the issue in the lawsuit is whether outside companies have the right to use information made public on social media sites and does not involve any employment work-place privacy issues, the lawsuit has disclosed how AI is currently being used and in the workplace.  AI is quickly being adopted, and its effects will have huge ramifications for employers and employees.  This Friday’s Five discusses five impacts AI will have in the employment context:

1. Predictions of whether employees are likely to leave their jobs.

The analysis being done by hiQ Labs is a prime example of information that would be highly relevant to employers, employer’s competitors, recruiters and others.  As the Wall Street Journal article notes:

Among its services, hiQ monitors and analyzes LinkedIn profile pages to see who is polishing their résumés and liable to be poached, assigning so-called flight-risk scores to individual employees.

LinkedIn’s primary argument in suing hiQ to stops its “scraping” of LinkedIn’s information is that if LinkedIn users understood that their data was being gathered and used in this manner that they would be reluctant to share information and update their profiles.  This illustrates that there is value in the information being shared on LinkedIn when AI can analyze user’s data.  Regardless of which company has access to it, the fact that LinkedIn is suing over who has access to this data establishes how valuable the data is.  Employers are likely to begin using this data to evaluate their workforce in the near future, if it is not already occurring.

2. Set pay and performance standards.

One positive use of AI in the workplace could be as an aid to highlight good performers in a company and remind the managers to provide positive feedback or raises to high performing employees to increase employee retention.  Another potential use is analyzing data to set pay scales commensurate with the market for a particular locale or skill set.

3. Predictions of potential litigation.

Just as AI has been used to predict future mechanical failures of engines or other devices based on data history and monitoring the device, AI will likely be used to highlight employees who may pose a litigation risk.  Just as hiQ sets flight-risk scores, it is conceivable to set litigation-risk scores based on data.  Not commenting on whether this is appropriate (or legal) to do, the reality is that AI can and will be used for this analysis.

4. Help evaluate candidates interviewing for a job.

AI will likely be used in helping companies evaluate candidates for a job.  AI could evaluate education, experience, and other data obtained through the internet to predict an employee’s likely fit with the company as well as skill set.  There are laws already in place about employer’s use of certain public information, such as credit history and criminal backgrounds that must be excluded from such analysis, employers would have to approach this type of analysis cautiously to ensure compliance with existing laws.

5. Will there be a backlash for use of AI in the employment context, and will it be regulated?

Employers are already regulated on how they can use background information about candidates and employees under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA).  Similarly, AI is using background information known about a person and comparing that data to a wide data set to glean likely future outcomes.  There could be a case made that just as the FCRA and ICRRA create obligations to provide notice to employees about the background information that an employer is relying upon to make an employment decision for the employee to correct any mistakes in that information, employees should be able to see the data being relied upon in the AI analysis.  However, given that AI can gather and process a huge amount of data, it might be impossible to review all of the data.  Moreover, the data relied upon by AI about the employee’s background may be very accurate, but the algorithms relied upon by the AI might weight information in a way that does not result in accurate predictions.  Don’t forget, AI predictions are just that – predictions.  Nevertheless, employers are always looking for a small advantage over competitors, and AI may be one additional tool to do this.  However, like many other areas of technology, the legal system is slow to adopt to technical advancements.  AI in the workplace exists and is being used, employers and the legal system needs to start considering it ethical and legal parameters.

In this Friday’s Five I recommend books that I am either reading and have read related to managing employees or a business.  I hope everyone is having a great summer.

 

1. Manager Onboarding: 5 Steps for Setting New Leaders Up for Success

By Sharlyn Lauby

 

2. 101 Tough Conversations to Have with Employees: A Manager’s Guide to Addressing Performance, Conduct, and Discipline Challenges

By Paul Falcone

 

3. 101 Sample Write-Ups for Documenting Employee Performance Problems: A Guide to Progressive Discipline & Termination

By Paul Falcone

 

4. How to Win Friends & Influence People

By:  Dale Carnegie

A classic business book not often thought of as a human resources book.  However, many of the principles set out in this book are great practices for human recourse managers.

 

5. The Thank You Economy

By: Gary Vaynerchuk

Anther book not thought of as a traditional human resources book, but many of the lessons set out by Gary on how to market and build a successful business in today’s economy equally apply to human resources and managing a workforce.  Being authentic and focusing on one-on-one interactions with people will always be a good practice, no matter how technical the workplace becomes.

Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

USCIS released a revised version of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. The revised I-9 was released on July 17, 2017, and employers can use this revised version or continue using Form I-9 with a revision date of 11/14/16 N through September 17, 2017. On September 18, 2017 employers must use the revised form with a revision date of 07/17/17 N. Employers must continue following existing storage and retention rules for any previously completed Form I-9.