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

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




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 National Origin Discrimination Claim Against New York Restaurant

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    The Divisionís 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 Actís (INA) anti-discrimination provision.

    The investigation was initiated by a worker, who filed a complaint with IER, alleging Ichiba Ramenís 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 restaurantís hiring of servers. The INAís 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 INAís 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.
  2. 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 IERís investigation into whether the company violated the Immigration and Nationality Actís (INA) anti-discrimination provision.

    The investigation, which was initiated in response to a workerís 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 INAís 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 INAís 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 12:00 PM by BBuchanan

  3. Automatic Extension of EADs for Hondurans and Nicaraguans on TPS

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	TPS.jpg 
Views:	51 
Size:	4.5 KB 
ID:	1250

    As the Trump administration continues to gradually terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for some countries, including Honduras and Nicaragua, it is important to remember the validity of employment authorization cards (EADs) is automatically extended for a period of time for individuals with TPS from Honduras and Nicaragua.

    If an employee from Honduras or Nicaragua has an EAD with an expiration date of January 5, 2018 and lists the category code "A-12" or "C-19," this EAD is automatically extended and the employee may continue to work without a new EAD (and without a receipt notice) through the end of the applicable automatic extension period. TPS Honduras EADs have been automatically extended through July 4, 2018. TPS Nicaragua EADs have been automatically extended through March 6, 2018.

    Additionally, the EADs of TPS beneficiaries from Nicaragua, who timely re-register (Form I-821) and file a request for a new EAD (Form I-765), will be automatically extended through July 4, 2018. The period for re-registration ends on February 13, 2018. If approved, the new EAD will terminate on January 5, 2019, the last day of TPS for Nicaraguans.

    The automatic extension of EADs for Hondurans and Nicaraguans is very important for employers because normally an employer needs to terminate an employee whose EAD expires and no further work authorization, such as a new EAD or permanent resident card, is provided. Thus, EADs obtained through TPS are an exception to the rule. If an employer terminates an employee because it believed their work authorization had expired when the EAD had been automatically extended, the employer may have violated the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). As subject, the employee may be subject to an investigation by the Immigrant and Employee Rights (IER) Section of the Department of Justice, which has authority to seek an employeeís reinstatement with back pay and a penalty paid to the U.S. government.

    If you want further information on immigration compliance issues, I recommend reading The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, a new book that I co-authored, which is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
  4. DOJ Settles Case Under U.S. Workers Initiative

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Crop Production Services 2.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	5.0 KB 
ID:	1248

    Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) of Department of Justice (DOJ) and Crop Production Services Inc. (Crop Production), an agricultural company headquartered in Loveland, Colorado, reached a settlement agreement. The settlement resolves a lawsuit the IER filed against the company on September 28, 2017, alleging the company discriminated against U.S. citizens because of a preference for foreign visa workers, in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

    The settlement is part of the DOJís Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative, an initiative aimed at targeting, investigating, and bringing enforcement actions against companies that discriminate against U.S. workers in favor of foreign visa workers.

    The lawsuit alleged that in 2016, Crop Production discriminated against at least three United States citizens by refusing to employ them as seasonal technicians at its El Campo, Texas location because the company preferred to employ temporary foreign workers under the H-2A visa program. According to the complaint, Crop Production imposed more burdensome requirements on U.S. citizens than it did on H-2A visa workers to discourage U.S. citizens from working at the facility. For instance, the complaint alleges that although U.S. citizens had to complete a background check and a drug test before being permitted to start work, H-2A visa workers were allowed to begin working without completing them and, in some cases, never completed them. Ultimately, all of Crop Productionís 15 available seasonal technician jobs in 2016 went to H-2A visa workers instead of U.S. workers. For more information on the lawsuit, see my prior blog entry at http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10157...t-U-S-Citizens.

    Under the INA, it is unlawful for employers to intentionally discriminate against U.S. workers because of their citizenship status or to otherwise favor the employment of temporary foreign visa workers over available, qualified U.S. workers. In addition, the H-2A visa program allows employers to hire foreign visa workers only if there is not enough qualified and available U.S. workers to fill the jobs.

    The settlement agreement requires Crop Production to pay civil penalties of $10,500 to the United States; undergo department-provided training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA; revise employment policies to assure that Crop Production does not discriminate on the basis of citizenship, and clarify that H-2A visa holders may only be hired in the absence of any qualified and available U.S. workers; and comply with departmental monitoring and reporting requirements for a two-year period. In a separate agreement with workers represented by Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Crop Production agreed to pay $18,738.75 in lost wages to affected U.S. workers.

    For answers to many other questions related to employer immigration compliance, I invite you to read my new book, The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, which is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
  5. JET of Saipan Distributes $40,000 in Back Pay to U.S. Workers Under IER Settlement

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Saipan.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	5.4 KB 
ID:	1243

    Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department announced J.E.T. Holding Co. Inc. (JET) has paid $40,000 to nine U.S. citizens pursuant to a January 17, 2017 settlement with IER, which resolved claims that JET discriminated against U.S. workers in favor of temporary foreign visa workers.

    In its investigation leading up to the settlement, the IER found JET, which operates a restaurant in Saipan, routinely refused to hire qualified U.S. citizens and other work-authorized individuals for dishwasher positions because of their citizenship status; rather, it preferred to fill the positions with temporary foreign visa workers. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, employers cannot prefer to hire temporary foreign visa workers over available and qualified U.S. workers based on citizenship status. For more information on the settlement, see my prior blog entry at http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?9680-...-J-E-T-Holding.

    This settlement and back pay is another example of the IER and other immigration-related agencies striving to comply with President Trumpís Hire American Executive Order. For more information on Hire American EO, see http://hrprofessionalsmagazine.com/w...ecutive-order/, an article that I co-authored with Adam Cohen (@MDVisas).

    For more information on employer immigration compliance issues, I invite you to read my new book, The I-9 and E-Verify Handbook, which is available at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0997083379.
Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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: