one option for your friend
IPC302,
The girl is potentially in trouble on two counts (although see comments below for each count)
1) violating her H1-B1 by not getting paid while on the bench
2) working without authorization at the store
Assuming she really IS in trouble for those two circumstances and IF they EVER get brought up, the best defense is probably the following: If your friend is grandfathered under the provisions of 245(i) (that is he was present in the US on a certain date a few years back) even if he had violated his status at some point he could still adjust status by paying $1000 penalty. I believe, but am not 100% sure, that this extends to his dependents. So the first thing to check is whether he falls under 245(i) and whether 245(i) can be applied to his wife ONLY.
If 245(i) is inapplicable, then here are my 2c as to the most likely scenario:
Suppose your friend marries this girl, and they submit I-485 for her as his dependent right away.
As part of the I-485 they should submit a copy of her H1-B1 approval notice as support that she was in valid status at the time of the I-485 application and pray that this would be enough.
Then his girl, now wife, will get EAD so she can work wherever she wants. After some years your friend's I-485 will be approved. After even more years, by which time they might be divorced anyway, INS will reach the wife's I-485. Judging from other posts in this forum, it is almost sure that the wife will be transfered to local INS office for an inverview due to the short lenght of marriage at the time of I-485 filing.
After yet some years, at the inverview (or in a possible RFE) the focus will be on whether they had a bona fide marriage, and hopefully less on the status of the girl many years back. It is impossible to predict if the status issue will come up and what evidence will be required if it does, since it will depend on the questions of the individual examiner/interviewer.
Chances are they may never discover that she was on the bench so many years ago and that she worked illegally for the store.
Even if they discover that she was not being paid for a few months of the bench, I think its easy to counter if it is typical for that company or industry. For example, many teachers and college professors get paid only 9 months per year, or resort workers have a certain time of the year off when the resort is closed, although they continue to be employed for that employer.
As for the store work, hopefully its cash only and not reported to IRS. Even if it is reported they'll need to examine in depth her tax return for that year to find out about it, and even then she could claim that she worked for this store only after the EAD pursuant to the I-485 was granted.
So my conclusion is they should hop in the next plane for Las Vegas. The potential problems are so far in the future, and don't seem so serious to me.
Good luck,
atsokbg