Cleaning Up 22 Incomplete I-9s Before an Audit

The plan is not permissible, and it converts a curable paperwork problem into a falsification problem.

• The I-9 has fixed timing: Section 1 by the first day of work, Section 2 within three business days of hire. Dating a new form with today's date for a 2022 hire creates a false attestation by both the employee and the employer.
• Correct remediation: for a current employee, complete the missing Section 2 now, with today's actual date, and attach a memo to the file ('Section 2 was not completed at hire; completed [date] during internal records audit'). For missing Section 1, the employee completes it now, dated now, with the same annotation.
• Missing form entirely: you may prepare a new I-9 for a current employee, but annotate it as a replacement for an existing employee, not as a new hire - it should not read as if the person started this week.
• Missing document numbers: clerical only. Add an explanatory note; do not re-verify the person.
• Never tell employees which documents to bring. They choose from List A, or List B plus List C. Specifying documents is a separate violation and a discrimination risk.

Why the distinction matters: a late completion is a technical failure the employer can cure and document. A backdated form is an attestation fraud exposure - and 22 of them look like a pattern, not an accident.

Sequence: verify the current workforce first, fix process second, housekeeping last.

1. Confirm authorization for all 22 before anything else. The audit question is not 'was the form timely,' it is 'can these people legally work?' That is roughly 30 minutes per employee: private room, employee completes the missing section personally, chooses documents, Section 2 completed in the same session so the date matches the employee's presence.
2. Triage by defect severity: missing entirely (8) → missing Section 2 (9) → document number gaps (5). Nine employees at four per week is a realistic pace.
3. Do not sweep in compliant employees. The 22 came from a records review, which is a neutral selection criterion. Re-verifying people because of how they look or sound is document abuse. Write down the selection rule ('all files reviewed during migration; 22 found deficient') so it is defensible.
4. Produce a one-page audit memo - count by defect type, remediation dates, and corrective controls (HRIS task that blocks hire finalization until Section 2 is attached; calendar reminder on day 1).
5. Defer retention/purge review until after the audit. It has no bearing on the customer's question.

The 'quietly' instruction is the biggest risk in the file.

• It is not achievable: employees will notice they are being asked for documents. If only the 22 are approached - a group likely to skew toward non-citizens - the employer creates a disparate-treatment appearance even though the underlying selection was neutral.
• Reframe for the plant manager in cost terms: a documented, dated remediation is the cheap outcome. A discovered backdating, or a complaint from an employee who felt singled out, is the expensive one. Put the plan in writing and get his sign-off so accountability is shared rather than absorbed by HR.
• Employee message: neutral and non-speculative - 'As part of a records audit, we are completing missing employment paperwork. Please bring any document from the attached list; the choice is yours.' Individual 15-minute conversations in a private room, all 22 treated identically.
• Do not suspend, discipline, or terminate anyone over the missing forms before they have had a chance to complete them. Firing on a technical I-9 failure, without confirming whether the person is authorized, is itself a discrimination exposure.

Note the constraint honestly: a new generalist cannot run an immigration audit alone. Flag to the plant manager that outside counsel review of the memo is worth the cost.