If adopted, the proposal would require Montana employers to verify new hires through E-Verify starting October 1, 2025, with exceptions for earlier hires and checks not required by federal law.
Montana employers would check new hires through E-Verify and keep records. They could not employ, continue to employ, or reemploy a new hire whose work authorization is not verified.
The attorney general would investigate complaints about employers. A corrected first violation involving one worker could bring a warning; repeat or broader violations would bring fines, and a third violation could put a business license at risk.
Montana local governments could not adopt written or spoken policies that limit or conflict with the attorney general’s enforcement of these rules.
Inspectors could review relevant business records. An employer terminating a worker to comply with the rules would not face the specified wrongful-discharge or state discrimination claims.
Employers would check new hires through E-Verify and keep verification records. The rules would cover employers licensed to operate in Montana and the people they hire. Employers would not have to follow this rule for people hired before October 1, 2025, or when federal law does not require an eligibility check. Employment would be provisional until verification. A private employer could not employ, continue to employ, or reemploy a new hire whose authorization is not verified. The rules would apply to people hired on or after October 1, 2025. Employers would keep records for the length of employment or three years, whichever is longer.
The attorney general would investigate complaints and could fine employers for violations. The process would apply to employers alleged to have violated the bill’s verification or unauthorized-worker rules. The attorney general would investigate submitted complaints unless law bars it, and could choose whether to investigate an anonymous complaint. The attorney general could not investigate a complaint based on race, color, national origin, or another discriminatory factor. For a first violation involving one worker, the attorney general could issue a warning and close the case if the employer showed the problem was corrected. A second violation, or one involving two or more workers, would carry a $2,500 fine per violation. A third or later violation would carry a $5,000 fine per violation. The attorney general would also seek court action to suspend or revoke the employer’s business license.
Montana local governments could not limit enforcement of these rules. The restriction would apply to political subdivisions of Montana. The restriction would cover written or spoken policies that limit or conflict with the attorney general’s ability to enforce the rules.
The attorney general and authorized inspectors could inspect relevant employer records; employers complying with the rules could terminate workers without certain state claims. The inspection authority would apply to employers. The termination protection would apply when an employer terminates a worker to comply with these rules. Inspectors would need to show credentials and could enter at reasonable times to question employers and workers and review relevant business records. An employer terminating a worker to comply with the rules would not face a wrongful-discharge lawsuit under the cited law or a civil discrimination claim under Title 49.
No hearings or votes scheduled.