ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

I-9 E-Verify Immigration Compliance

description

  1. DOJ Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against Themesoft Inc.

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    The Department of Justice, through the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), has reached a settlement with Themesoft Inc., a Texas-based company that provides consulting and staffing services to technology clients. The settlement resolves the IER’s investigation into whether the company discriminated against a work-authorized immigrant by refusing to allow him to continue in the hiring process, in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

    The investigation, initiated based on a worker’s complaint, revealed Themesoft engaged in citizenship status discrimination against an asylee by refusing to process his application because he was not a lawful permanent resident, U.S. citizen, or H-1B visa holder. Asylees have permanent work authorization, like U.S. citizens, refugees, and lawful permanent residents, so employers are generally prohibited from discriminating against them based on their citizenship status. The investigation also revealed Themesoft requested specific immigration documentation from the worker because of his citizenship or immigration status even though the INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits such conduct.

    Under the settlement agreement, Themesoft will pay $12,000 in back pay to the Charging Party and offer him employment; $4,543.25 in civil penalties for the alleged citizenship status discrimination and the unfair documentary practices; post notices informing workers about their rights under the INA’s anti-discrimination provision; train its Human Resources personnel on their legal obligations to not discriminate by viewing a free online IER Employer/HR Representative webinar presentation and reviewing the M-274 Handbook for Employers; review and revise, as necessary, any existing employment policies that relate to nondiscrimination based on traits or characteristics protected by law; for the next three years, provide the most current version of the Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents to individuals in the same manner as it provides them with the Form I-9 to complete; and be subject to departmental monitoring and reporting requirements for three years.
  2. Meat Processing Plant Agrees to Pay $52,100 to Resolve IER Discrimination Claim

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    The Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) of the Justice Department has entered into a settlement agreement with West Liberty Foods L.L.C., a meat processing business that operates a plant in Bolingbrook, Illinois, wherein the company will pay $52,100. The settlement resolves the IER’s investigation into whether the company discriminated against work-authorized immigrants when verifying their employment authorization.

    The investigation revealed that West Liberty Foods routinely asked non-U.S. citizens hired at its Bolingbrook location to present specific documents, such as permanent resident cards or employment authorization documents, to establish their work authorization but did not make similar requests of U.S. citizens. The anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits employers from subjecting employees to more or different documentary demands based on employees’ citizenship, immigration status, or national origin.

    Under the settlement, West Liberty Foods will pay a civil penalty of $52,100 to the United States; revise employment policies to assure that West Liberty Foods does not discriminate on the basis of citizenship status; ensure that its human resources staff participates in IER-provided training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA; post notices informing workers about their rights under the INA’s anti-discrimination provision; and be subject to IER monitoring for two years.

    This settlement demonstrates the need for employers to be aware of the anti-discrimination provision of the INA as it relates to treating employees differently due to their citizenship status. To learn more about employer immigration compliance, I invite you to read The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, a book that I co-authored with Greg Siskind, which is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
  3. DOJ Settles National Origin Discrimination Claim Against New York Restaurant

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    The Division’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), within the Department of Justice has reached a settlement with Food Love 125 Inc., d/b/a Ichiba Ramen, a New York City restaurant, to resolve an investigation into whether the restaurant violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) anti-discrimination provision.

    The investigation was initiated by a worker, who filed a complaint with IER, alleging Ichiba Ramen’s former chef discriminated against a job applicant when it refused to hire him as a server because he was not Korean or Japanese. The investigation also revealed that prior chefs had not placed such limitations on the restaurant’s hiring of servers. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers with four to 14 employees from discriminating against individuals because of their national origin.

    Under the settlement agreement, Ichiba Ramen will pay a civil penalty of $2000, undergo training on the INA’s anti-discrimination provision, and post notices informing workers about their rights under the INA. The restaurant previously paid $1,760 in back pay to the affected applicant.

    This national origin settlement with the IER is fairly rare as the IER only has jurisdiction on national origin claims involving employers with four to 14 employees. Most national origin claims are filed with the EEOC, who has jurisdiction on national origin claims involving employers with 15 or more employees.

    For answers to many other questions related to the IER, national origin discrimination, and immigration compliance, I invite you to read The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, a book that I co-authored with Greg Siskind, and is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
  4. Cost of Immigration Violations Continue to Rise

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Effective January 20, 2018, the civil penalties for a variety of immigration-related violations increased dues to an adjustment for inflation. Below is a chart setting forth the old and new amounts:

    Type of Violation Old Amounts New Amounts
    I-9 substantive violation $220 - $2191 $224 - $2236
    Knowingly employing undocumented worker $548 - $4384 $559 - $4473
    Unfair Documentary Practice $181 - $1811 $185 - $1848
    Immigration-Related Discrimination $452 - $3621 $461 - $3695

    These increases are another reason to conduct an internal audit of your I-9 forms. Through such, an employer can remedy or mitigate many violations before Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Immigrations and Employees Rights Section (IER) discovers them. To learn more about employer immigration compliance and steps you can take to prevent I-9 violations and hiring undocumented workers, I invite you to read The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, a book that I co-authored with Greg Siskind, which is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
  5. IER Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against CVS subsidiary

    By: Bruce Buchanan Law PLLC

    The Justice Department, through Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), formerly known as the OSC, has reached a settlement with Omnicare Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation, resolving the IER’s investigation into whether the company violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) anti-discrimination provision.

    The investigation, which was initiated in response to a worker’s complaint, revealed Omnicare engaged in citizenship status discrimination against a work-authorized job applicant by refusing to refer him to the hiring manager for an interview because he was not a permanent resident or U.S. citizen, and removing him from the candidate pool based on his status as an asylee. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from discriminating against asylees because of their citizenship or immigration status, unless authorized by law to do so.

    Under the settlement agreement, Omnicare will pay $3,621, the maximum civil penalty for a single instance of citizenship status discrimination; post notices informing workers about their rights under the INA’s anti-discrimination provision; have its staff and its contractors undergo department-provided training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA; evaluate all employment applicants in a non-discriminatory manner; and be subject to departmental monitoring and reporting requirements for two years.

    This settlement demonstrates the need for employers, big and small, to be aware of the law as it relates to citizenship status for asylees and other applicants. To learn more about employer immigration compliance, I invite you to read The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, a book that I co-authored with Greg Siskind, which is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379

    Updated 01-30-2018 at 11:00 AM by BBuchanan

Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: