NYX Inc. DOJ Settlement: $92,500 for Unfair I-9 Document Requirements

NYX Inc. DOJ Settlement: $92,500 for Demanding Extra I-9 Documents from Green Card Holders

On August 13, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a $92,500 civil penalty against NYX Inc. for discriminatory documentary practices during the Form I-9 employment eligibility verification process. NYX Inc. required lawful permanent residents to present specific documentation to prove their work authorization — treating them differently than U.S. citizens, who were allowed to present documents of their own choosing.

The NYX Inc. settlement is a critical data point in the 2025 Protecting U.S. Workers enforcement campaign for a reason that has nothing to do with job ads: this is an I-9 violation. Every employer in the United States must complete Form I-9 for every new hire. Every employer that handles I-9 paperwork is exposed to the documentary practices provision of § 1324b. And the NYX Inc. case shows that getting I-9 procedures wrong — even with no discriminatory intent — is enough to trigger a substantial civil penalty.

The IT staffing sector may be the primary target of job-ad-based § 1324b enforcement. But the documentary practices violations that NYX Inc. and Nuts.com committed can happen at any company, in any industry, at any hiring manager's desk.

The I-9 Verification Process and § 1324b

Before we examine what NYX Inc. did wrong, it's essential to understand what the law requires — and permits — in I-9 verification. Misunderstanding the document presentation rules is where most documentary practices violations originate.

The Form I-9 Framework

The Employment Eligibility Verification Form (Form I-9) requires employers to verify that every new employee is authorized to work in the United States. The verification involves two elements:

1. Identity verification: The employee proves who they are
2. Work authorization verification: The employee proves they are authorized to work in the U.S.

Employees may satisfy these requirements by presenting:

• A List A document: A single document that establishes both identity and work authorization (e.g., U.S. passport, Permanent Resident Card, Employment Authorization Document)
• OR a List B document (identity only) plus a List C document (work authorization only)

The Anti-Reverification Rule

The critical rule that NYX Inc. violated: employers cannot specify which documents employees must present, and cannot request more or different documents than the minimum required. Employees have the right to choose which documents from the acceptable lists they want to present.

From the USCIS I-9 handbook:

"An employer or authorized representative must examine the documentation the employee presents. You cannot specify which document(s) an employee may present. If an employee chooses to present a List A document, you cannot require the employee to present List B and List C documents."

In other words, if a lawful permanent resident presents their green card (Form I-551) as a List A document — which fully satisfies both identity and work authorization requirements — the employer must accept it. The employer cannot demand to also see a Social Security card, a driver's license, or any other additional document.

What NYX Inc. Did Wrong

NYX Inc. violated this rule by requiring lawful permanent residents to present specific documentation — documentation beyond what was necessary to satisfy I-9 requirements — because of their citizenship status. The DOJ found that NYX Inc. was treating LPRs differently than U.S. citizens:

• U.S. citizens were allowed to present documents of their own choice — as the law requires
• Lawful permanent residents were required to present specific documents that NYX Inc. designated — which the law prohibits

This differential treatment — applying more restrictive or more burdensome document requirements to lawful permanent residents than to U.S. citizens — is precisely what the § 1324b documentary practices prohibition is designed to prevent.

Why This Happens in Practice

Documentary practices violations typically originate from one of a few sources:

Misguided "verification" procedures: HR staff who want to be "thorough" may develop internal protocols requiring green card holders to present their card plus a Social Security card — genuinely believing this is better verification practice, not understanding it's illegal.

"Green card check" policies: Some employers have informal policies requiring LPRs to show their physical green card rather than allowing them to present a passport or other acceptable List A document. This constitutes specifying documentation based on citizenship status.

Reverification errors: Employers who require LPRs to reverify work authorization more frequently than U.S. citizens — or who implement reverification requirements that apply only to non-citizens — may be engaged in discriminatory documentary practices.

Inconsistent ATS or onboarding system configurations: Automated onboarding systems that present different document collection requirements to employees based on their stated citizenship status can generate systematic documentary practices violations at scale.

Why $92,500? Understanding the Penalty Calculation

The $92,500 penalty is one of the larger single-company penalties in the 2025 Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative. Understanding why requires understanding how § 1324b penalties are calculated for documentary practices violations.

Under § 1324b(b)(2), documentary practices violations carry civil penalties in the same range as other citizenship status discrimination:

A $92,500 penalty at first-offense rates could represent penalties for approximately 17–425 affected individuals, depending on where in the range each violation falls. A higher penalty per violation — perhaps $3,000–$5,000 per person — applied to 20–30 LPR new hires who were subjected to discriminatory document requirements would easily produce a $92,500 total.

This math illustrates an important point: employers who process hundreds or thousands of new hires per year and apply discriminatory documentary practices systematically can face very large aggregate penalties — far exceeding what a single discriminatory job ad might generate.

Documentary Practices Violations vs. Job Ad Violations: Different Risk Profiles

Most discussions of § 1324b enforcement focus on discriminatory job ads — the H-1B-only postings that characterize most IT staffing cases. But documentary practices violations have a different risk profile that every HR team should understand:

Documentary practices violations can accumulate quietly over years. An employer with a flawed I-9 procedure who processes 200 new hires per year — including 30 LPRs per year who are subjected to discriminatory document demands — may have 150+ individual violations before anyone files a charge.

How to Fix Your I-9 Process

Step 1: Audit Your I-9 Instructions and Training Materials

Pull every document that your HR team uses to guide the I-9 process: onboarding checklists, HR instruction manuals, training slides, digital onboarding system prompts. Review them for:

• Any language specifying which documents LPRs, asylees, refugees, or TPS holders must present
• Any requirement for document types beyond what the employee chooses to provide
• Any reverification schedule that applies differently to different citizenship or immigration status categories
• Any checklist that treats non-citizens differently than U.S. citizens in the document collection process

Step 2: Review Your Onboarding System

If you use an HR information system (HRIS) or onboarding platform with digital I-9 completion, review the system's document prompts. Some systems are configured to request specific documents based on the employee's stated immigration status — generating systematic discrimination at scale.

Ask your HRIS vendor to confirm that its I-9 module does not present differentiated document requirements based on immigration status.

Step 3: Check Your Reverification Practices

I-9 reverification is required when a work authorization document expires. However:

• U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents with permanent green cards do not need to reverify work authorization when their card expires — their authorization is permanent
• Employers who require LPRs to reverify (or who burden them with more frequent re-verification than U.S. citizens) may be engaged in discriminatory documentary practices

Review your reverification calendar and procedures. Ensure you are not treating permanent residents as if they need ongoing work authorization renewal.

Step 4: Train All I-9 Processors

Everyone who completes I-9 forms for new hires needs to understand:

• Employees choose their documents; the employer does not
• The employer cannot request specific documents beyond what the employee presents
• Employees cannot be required to present documents of a type they did not choose to present
• The I-9 List of Acceptable Documents is the employee's menu — not a series of employer-imposed requirements

The DOJ's IER Section offers free employer training on I-9 compliance. Use it.

Step 5: Conduct an I-9 Audit

Review historical I-9 records for patterns. If your records show that LPRs consistently presented more documents than U.S. citizens, that could indicate systematic documentary discrimination. Work with employment counsel to assess your liability exposure and consider voluntary remediation.

Comparison: NYX Inc., Nuts.com, and Documentary Practices

Two of the 2025 Protecting U.S. Workers settlements involved documentary practices violations — NYX Inc. (August 2025) and Nuts.com (September 2025). Comparing the two cases reveals important patterns:

Both cases involve the same basic violation: treating lawful permanent residents as a suspect class during I-9 verification rather than extending them the same document-choice rights as U.S. citizens. The persistence of this violation across different industries and company types suggests that the underlying misunderstanding of I-9 rules is widespread.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a "documentary practices" violation under § 1324b?

A documentary practices violation occurs when an employer requests more or different documents from a new hire during I-9 verification based on the hire's citizenship status or national origin. The classic example: requiring lawful permanent residents to present their green card and a Social Security card, while allowing U.S. citizens to present only a driver's license and Social Security card — or whatever combination they choose from List A/B/C.

Can I require all employees to present a specific type of ID?

No. Under § 1324b, employees have the right to choose which documents from the acceptable I-9 lists they want to present. You cannot specify which documents you require. If an LPR wants to present their passport as a List A document, you must accept it. You cannot insist on seeing the green card.

What if we require specific documents for business reasons — like a government contract requiring ID verification?

Some employers — particularly federal contractors — have additional identity verification requirements beyond Form I-9. Those requirements must be applied consistently to all employees without regard to citizenship status. If your contract requires a specific type of government-issued ID, that requirement applies to everyone (U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike), not just to LPRs or non-citizens.

Does the documentary practices rule apply to E-Verify users?

Yes. E-Verify participation does not change your obligations regarding which I-9 documents you can request. You must still allow employees to choose their documents, and E-Verify simply runs the document information against government databases. Some E-Verify mismatches may prompt follow-up, but those procedures are governed by E-Verify's own rules — not by a right to demand additional specific documents.

How long do I have to correct documentary practices violations before a DOJ investigation?

The § 1324b statute of limitations for filing a charge is 180 days from the discriminatory act. However, systematic documentary practices violations that are ongoing accumulate with each new hire — so a policy of requiring extra documents from LPRs generates new violations every time it is applied. Fixing the practice as soon as possible stops the accumulation of new violations, but does not retroactively cure past violations.

What remediation is required if I discover my I-9 procedures were discriminatory?

First, correct the procedure immediately. Second, consult employment counsel to assess your liability exposure for past violations. Third, consider whether voluntary self-disclosure to the DOJ's IER Section is advisable — voluntary cooperation and proactive remediation are typically mitigating factors. Fourth, review your I-9 records to identify affected employees and assess whether back pay or other remediation may be appropriate.

If an employee presents an expired document, can I demand a current one?

It depends on the document. Expired List A, B, or C documents are not acceptable for I-9 purposes. However, you cannot ask employees to re-present a different type of document because their original choice expired — they must be allowed to present any acceptable current document from the appropriate list.

Key Takeaways

The NYX Inc. settlement is a reminder that § 1324b compliance is not just about what you post. It's about what you ask employees to hand you when they start work.

Every I-9 in your files is a compliance data point. If your procedures have been requiring lawful permanent residents to present specific documentation that you don't require from U.S. citizens, you have accumulated violations that could translate to substantial civil penalties.

The $92,500 NYX Inc. penalty represents a significant financial consequence for what many employers would assume is a minor procedural issue. It's not minor. It's a federal civil rights violation that accumulates with every discriminatory I-9 interaction.

EmployArmor reviews your I-9 procedures, onboarding workflows, and document collection practices against § 1324b documentary practices requirements. Our platform flags discriminatory document policies before they generate enforcement exposure. Get your free compliance assessment →

Last updated: March 2026. This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult qualified employment and immigration counsel for guidance specific to your situation.