Key Ways Construction Companies Can Stay in Compliance with E-Verify

The federal E-Verify program has become an increasingly central feature of employment verification in the construction industry. Once a voluntary tool used primarily by federal contractors, E-Verify is now mandated, either broadly or for specific project types, by a growing number of states, and its role continues to expand under federal enforcement policy. For construction companies, which depend heavily on large, mobile workforces, and layered subcontracting relationships, E-Verify compliance presents unique operational and legal challenges. This article identifies the key practices construction companies should adopt to maintain compliance, highlights common good-faith mistakes that nonetheless expose contractors to enforcement risk, and examines the broader implications of continued E-Verify expansion for the construction labor market.

1. The Proper Use of E-Verify

A. Treat E-Verify as a structured compliance system, not just a database check

Compliance depends on process discipline, not merely running names through the system. E-Verify should be closely integrated with a compliant Form I-9 process, including timely case creation and proper handling of tentative non-confirmations (TNCs). E Verify does not replace I-9 obligations, and both systems must be followed in parallel.

B. Use E-Verify uniformly and without discrimination

Consistency is one of the most emphasized compliance themes. Contractors should run E-Verify checks only when legally required (e.g., under state mandates) or, if used voluntarily, apply it uniformly to all new hires. Contractors with federal contracts often have a contractual duty to use E-Verify for all new hires “company-wide” and for all employees, including previously hired employees, who are assigned to the federal contract project. Selective use raises the risk of discrimination and retaliation complaints and raises questions about program compliance.

C. Strictly follow TNC and final non-confirmation protocols

The greatest penalty exposure stems from mishandling non-confirmations. Contractors must:

• Allow employees to contest a TNC
• Continue employment during the resolution period
• Terminate employment only after a final non-confirmation

Failure to act after a final non-confirmation, particularly in states that mandate E-Verify, can trigger fines, debarment, or even license revocation.

D. Maintain defensible records and audit readiness

State E-Verify statutes commonly impose multiyear retention obligations (often three years after hire or one year after termination). Contractors should assume audits will occur and maintain centralized, retrievable verification records—not just decentralized job-site copies.

2. Common “Good Faith” Mistakes Construction Companies Make with E-Verify

Many E-Verify violations arise despite genuine attempts to comply.

A. Over reliance on E-Verify as a “safe harbor”

Several high profile enforcement actions demonstrate that government agencies do not treat E-Verify approval as conclusive proof of compliance. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has criticized contractors for “reckless reliance” on E-Verify when additional I-9 errors or re-verification failures were present. This creates a trap for contractors who reasonably assume that a government confirmation equals immunity.

B. Improper timing of E-Verify submissions

A frequent technical error is running E-Verify too early or too late—for example, prior to acceptance of an employment offer or outside the required three-day post-hire window. These timing violations routinely surface in audits and undermine claims of procedural compliance, even when no unauthorized worker was hired.

C. Confusion between federal and state mandates

As more states adopt construction specific E-Verify laws, contractors often misunderstand:

• Which projects are covered (residential vs. non residential)
• Whether subcontractors or labor brokers are included
• Whether existing employees must be re-verified

Inconsistent state rules are likely a leading source of accidental noncompliance. It is critical that contractors be aware of the specifics of each statute enforced in the states where they operate.

D. Failure to police subcontractor compliance

Construction contracts increasingly impose flow-down E-Verify obligations, yet many general contractors fail to audit or document subcontractor compliance. Upstream contractors may face penalties or federal debarment, where applicable, when subcontractors knowingly violate verification obligations.

3. What Continued Use of E-Verify Means for the Construction Labor Shortage

A. Published data confirms an already severe labor shortage

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) states that over 90% of contractors report difficulty filling craft positions, with project delays and cancellations directly linked to labor gaps. Separately, industry commentary estimates that between 15% and 30% of the construction workforce in states such as Texas and California is undocumented, underscoring how sensitive the labor supply is to enforcement policy.

B. E-Verify is likely to tighten labor supply in the short term

Expanded E-Verify mandates reduce the pool of immediately available workers—especially in construction. At worst, E-Verify is likely to find non-eligibility from workers whose documents appear proper on physical review. Even at best, E-Verify slows hiring timelines and exacerbates shortages during peak project demand.

C. Long term effects depend on governmental policy choices

Absent expanded visa programs or workforce legalization pathways, continued E-Verify expansion is likely to raise labor costs, increase subcontracting risk, and delay project schedules, rather than meaningfully reduce demand for unauthorized labor. Enforcement of worker eligibility laws does nothing to address the structural workforce deficit driven by demographic shifts, the redirection of the training pipeline, and the broader addressing of immigration policy.

E-Verify compliance in the construction industry is not simply a matter of checking a box; it requires sustained procedural rigor, uniform application, and careful coordination across multi-tier contracting relationships. As this article illustrates, even well-intentioned contractors face significant enforcement exposure when they treat E-Verify as a standalone safeguard rather than one component of a broader verification and recordkeeping system. The consequences of noncompliance, including fines, debarment, license revocation, and discrimination liability are serious and increasingly likely as both federal and state enforcement activity intensifies. At the same time, the construction industry must contend with the reality that expanded verification mandates will compound an already acute labor shortage, absent meaningful changes to immigration and workforce policy. Construction companies that invest now in robust, centralized compliance infrastructure, and that monitor both their own practices and those of their subcontractors, will be best positioned to manage these converging legal and operational pressures.

Peckar & Abramson Has The Most Experienced and Largest Construction & Infrastructure Practice in the United States – With a Worldwide Reach. 

The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of ConsensusDocs. Readers should not take or refrain from taking any action based on any information without first seeking legal advice.