ICE at Your Workplace on Long Island: What Are Your Rights?

Last week, Newsday covered the release of a Plainview father who spent roughly nine months in ICE detention after being stopped while driving his son to a doctor’s appointment. He had no criminal record and a pending asylum application. His family posted bond, and he came home to Long Island in early July.

Stories like that are why my phone rings with a question I never used to get: “What happens if they come to my job?”

I want to be clear about what I am and what I’m not. I’m not an immigration lawyer, and this article will not tell you how to fight a removal case. I’m an employment lawyer. What I can tell you is what the law says about the fifteen minutes when federal agents walk into a workplace in Hempstead or Brentwood or Huntington Station, and, just as important, what New York employment law says about everything that happens around those fifteen minutes: the boss who threatens to “call ICE” when you complain about your paycheck, the wages you’re owed no matter what your status is, and the retaliation claims that exist precisely because employers have used immigration enforcement as a weapon against their own workers for decades.

New York wrote those protections into the Labor Law on purpose. They apply to everyone.

The piece of paper at the door decides almost everything

When agents arrive at a workplace, the first legal question is not who works there. It’s what document the agents are holding. There are two kinds, they look superficially similar, and they carry completely different legal weight.

A judicial warrant is issued by a court and signed by a judge (a U.S. district court or a state court). It says “U.S. District Court” or the name of a state court at the top, it describes the specific place to be searched or the person to be arrested, and it’s dated. A valid judicial warrant authorizes agents to enter the areas it describes. Nobody’s consent is needed.

An administrative warrant comes from ICE itself, not from a court. The common forms are the I-200 (warrant of arrest) and I-205 (warrant of removal). It bears a Department of Homeland Security seal and is signed by an immigration officer, not a judge. Here is the part almost nobody knows: an administrative warrant does not authorize agents to enter the private areas of a workplace. It authorizes ICE to arrest a specific person, but it does not override the Fourth Amendment’s protection of nonpublic spaces. The New York Attorney General’s guidance on ICE in the workplace says this flatly: without a judicial warrant or the employer’s permission, agents cannot lawfully enter a private space.

The scope question matters too. Even a judicial warrant only covers what it describes. If it authorizes a search of the business’s payroll records, it does not authorize agents to search every employee’s purse. Consent to search anything beyond the warrant’s scope can be declined, politely and without physical interference.

Public areas versus private areas

The Fourth Amendment line inside a workplace runs between spaces open to the public and spaces that aren’t.

The dining room of a Huntington restaurant, the sales floor of a Massapequa store, the lobby of an office building: public. Agents can walk in the same way a customer can, no warrant needed. The kitchen, the stock room, the break room, the back office, the warehouse floor behind the “Employees Only” sign: private. That is where the judicial-warrant-or-consent rule applies.

This is why what the employer does in the first two minutes matters so much. An employer (or a manager on duty) has the right to ask to see the warrant, to read it, to check the address, and to say “I do not consent to a search” if the paper is administrative. The employer also does not have to answer questions, does not have to pull an employee off the line and deliver them to the agents, and can ask to have a lawyer present. None of that is obstruction. Physically blocking agents, hiding workers, lying to federal officers, or destroying documents is a different story entirely, and I will never advise it. The law gives you the right to decline consent and stay silent. It does not give anyone the right to interfere.

Your rights as a worker if agents show up

Whatever your status, the Constitution applies to you on U.S. soil. During a workplace enforcement action:

You can stay silent. The Fifth Amendment means you do not have to answer questions about your immigration status, your country of birth, or how you entered the United States. “I am exercising my right to remain silent, and I want to speak to a lawyer” is a complete answer. Anything you do say can be used against you later in immigration proceedings, and often is.

You do not have to consent to a search. If an agent asks to look in your bag, your locker, or your car in the lot, you can say “I do not consent to a search.” Say it out loud. If they search anyway, do not resist; your lawyer deals with that in court, not you in the parking lot.

Do not sign anything. In the chaos of an enforcement action, workers get handed forms — sometimes a stipulated removal or voluntary-departure paperwork that gives up the right to see an immigration judge. Signing a document you don’t understand, without counsel, can end a case you might have won. You have the right to say “I won’t sign anything until I speak with a lawyer.”

Do not run, and never present false documents. Running gives agents a reason to detain you and looks terrible later. False documents convert an immigration problem into a criminal one. Stay calm, stay put, stay quiet.

One more thing worth saying plainly: none of this depends on your employer’s courage. Your right to remain silent is yours. It does not evaporate because a manager consented to something or answered questions you wouldn’t have.

An I-9 audit is not a raid

Most workplace immigration enforcement on Long Island is not agents coming through the door. It’s paperwork.

An I-9 audit starts with a Notice of Inspection served on the employer. Under federal regulation (8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(2)(ii)), the employer gets at least three business days to produce its I-9 forms; ICE typically also asks for payroll and employee lists. The Attorney General’s guidance notes employers can decline to waive that three-day period, and in my view they generally should. Those three days exist so a lawyer can review what’s being handed over.

For workers, an audit moves slower and quieter than a raid, but it has consequences. If the audit flags your paperwork, the employer may ask you to re-verify your work authorization. What an employer cannot lawfully do is use the audit as cover: firing the workers who recently complained about overtime while calling it “I-9 compliance,” or selectively re-verifying only the employees who testified in a wage investigation. Timing tells that story, and it’s exactly the kind of pattern we look for in retaliation cases.

When your boss uses ICE as a weapon

Here is the part of this topic that lands squarely in my practice, because I’ve seen the pattern for years: a worker complains about unpaid overtime, or a wage notice, or a safety issue, and the response isn’t a paycheck correction. It’s “be careful, or I’ll call immigration.”

New York made that move illegal, explicitly. New York Labor Law § 215 prohibits an employer from retaliating against a worker for complaining about Labor Law violations, and the statute spells out that retaliation includes “contacting or threatening to contact United States immigration authorities” or reporting (or threatening to report) the suspected citizenship or immigration status of an employee or an employee’s family or household member to any government agency. The complaint that triggers protection doesn’t need to cite a statute; telling your manager “you’re not paying me for all my hours” is enough.

The remedies have teeth: reinstatement or front pay, lost compensation, attorney’s fees, and liquidated damages of up to $20,000 per aggrieved employee. A violation is also a class B misdemeanor. Separately, the New York State Human Rights Law was amended (effective December 2022) to add citizenship or immigration status as a protected class, so discriminating against, harassing, or retaliating against a worker because of immigration status is now an independent violation of Executive Law § 296.

And New York’s courts backed all of this up long before the current enforcement wave. In Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC, 6 N.Y.3d 338 (2006), the New York Court of Appeals held that an undocumented construction worker injured on the job could recover lost wages under the Labor Law. Federal immigration law didn’t bar the claim, because New York’s labor protections exist for all workers, whatever their status. Twenty years later, that principle is the foundation for everything in this article: minimum wage, overtime, anti-discrimination, and anti-retaliation law in New York do not check your papers.

I wrote recently about how these cases actually get built in wage theft retaliation lawsuits in New York, and the immigration-threat version follows the same playbook: document the complaint, document the threat, document the timing. Long Island’s restaurant, landscaping, construction, and home-care industries run on immigrant labor, and the wage disputes that come out of them — like the one I covered in the Hoffman v. Dallas Hot Wieners wage battle — show how often “call ICE” gets deployed exactly when a worker asserts a right.

If your employer fired you after you asserted your rights during or after an enforcement action, that termination may be actionable as retaliation or as discrimination based on immigration status. Those are the cases our employment discrimination practice handles, and the retaliation cases we bring on Long Island increasingly include an immigration-threat component. Bias against immigrant workers also shows up in subtler forms than threats — I covered the quieter versions in Long Island workplace bias: are you breaking the law?

What New York law still owes you, whatever happens

A detention does not erase what you already earned. Wages for hours worked are owed regardless of immigration status, and a family member or attorney can pursue unpaid wages on behalf of a detained worker. Discrimination and retaliation claims don’t disappear either; statutes of limitation keep running, which is a reason to get a lawyer involved quickly rather than waiting to see how the immigration case resolves.

If you remember one thing from this article, make it this: the workers most likely to be exploited are the ones who believe they have no rights. In New York, that belief is wrong, and employers count on it anyway.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can ICE enter the kitchen or back office of my workplace without a judicial warrant?

No. Employee-only areas — kitchens, stock rooms, break rooms, offices — are private spaces under the Fourth Amendment. Agents need either a judicial warrant signed by a judge or the employer’s consent to enter them. An administrative warrant on Form I-200 or I-205, signed by an immigration officer rather than a judge, does not authorize entry into private areas. Public-facing areas like a dining room or lobby are different; agents can enter those the way any customer can.

Do I have to answer questions about my immigration status at work?

No. The Fifth Amendment right to remain silent applies regardless of immigration status. You do not have to tell agents where you were born, what your status is, or how you entered the country, and you do not have to hand over foreign documents. Saying “I am exercising my right to remain silent and I want to speak to a lawyer” is lawful and usually wise, because anything you volunteer can be used in immigration proceedings later.

My boss threatened to call ICE after I complained about unpaid overtime. Is that legal?

No. New York Labor Law § 215 defines retaliation to include contacting or threatening to contact immigration authorities, or reporting a worker’s suspected immigration status (or a family member’s) to any government agency, because the worker complained about a Labor Law violation. Remedies include reinstatement, lost pay, attorney’s fees, and liquidated damages up to $20,000. The violation is also a class B misdemeanor. Write down exactly what was said and when, and talk to an employment lawyer.

Can I be fired for refusing to answer ICE’s questions or for asserting my rights?

Asserting constitutional rights during an enforcement action is not misconduct, and a termination that follows closely after you assert workplace rights deserves a hard look. If the firing is connected to a wage or safety complaint you made, NYLL § 215 applies. If it’s connected to your immigration status itself, the New York State Human Rights Law now lists citizenship and immigration status as a protected class under Executive Law § 296. Timing, shifting explanations, and who else was treated differently are the evidence these cases turn on.

Does my immigration status stop me from suing for unpaid wages or discrimination in New York?

No. The New York Court of Appeals held in Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC (2006) that the state’s labor protections extend to workers regardless of immigration status, and the Attorney General’s guidance says the same about minimum wage, overtime, discrimination, and retaliation law. Courts also will not let your status be used as a threat in litigation. You can pursue wages you earned and claims you hold whether or not you have work authorization.

What is the difference between an I-9 audit and a raid?

An I-9 audit is a paperwork inspection: ICE serves the employer a Notice of Inspection, and federal regulations give the employer at least three business days to produce its I-9 forms. No agents sweep the floor, and workers usually learn about it only if re-verification follows. A raid is a physical enforcement action, typically requiring a judicial warrant to reach nonpublic areas. Employers sometimes use an audit as cover for firing workers who recently complained about wages — selective “compliance” timed to a complaint can itself be retaliation.

Talk to us

If your employer threatened you with ICE, fired you after a complaint, or used an enforcement action as an excuse to cut you loose: bring what you have. Texts, pay stubs, the names of coworkers who heard the threat, and a timeline of what you complained about and when. We represent workers across Nassau County, Suffolk County, and the five boroughs in retaliation, discrimination, and wage cases, regardless of immigration status. We work on contingency and the consultation is free. Consultations are confidential, and we can arrange them in Spanish.

This article explains workplace rights during federal immigration enforcement and New York’s anti-retaliation and anti-discrimination laws as of July 2026. It is rights education, not legal advice, and nothing here should be read as advice to obstruct or interfere with federal officers. For advice on an immigration case itself, consult an immigration attorney. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. is licensed in New York State.