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 Immigration-Related Claim for $200,000 against Staffing Companies

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CitiStaff.gif 
Views:	16 
Size:	8.0 KB 
ID:	1225

    Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) has reached a settlement whereby CitiStaff Solutions Inc., and CitiStaff Management Group Inc. (collectively CitiStaff) agreed to pay a civil penalty of $200,000 to the United States government. The settlement resolves the investigation into whether CitiStaff violated the law by discriminating against work-authorized immigrants when verifying their work authorization.

    Based on its investigation, IER concluded that CitiStaff, which provide staffing services in the greater Los Angeles, California area, routinely requested non-U.S. citizens present specific documents to prove their work authorization, such as Permanent Resident Cards (green cards) or Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), but did not make similar requests for specific documents to U.S. citizens. All work-authorized individuals, whether U.S. citizens or non-U.S. citizens, have the right to choose which valid documentation to present to prove they are authorized to work. The anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits employers from subjecting employees to different or unnecessary documentary demands based on employees’ citizenship, immigration status or national origin.

    Furthermore, the investigation found CitiStaff required lawful permanent residents (LPRs) to reverify their work authorization status when their Permanent Resident Cards expired. It is unlawful to require reverification of a green card even if it expires as the LPRs continue to hold lawful status after a green card’s expiration.

    Under the settlement, CitiStaff will pay a civil penalty of $200,000 to the United States, train its staff on the law, and be subject to departmental monitoring and reporting requirements for three years.

    Companies need to be aware of the laws relating to determining employees’ lawful employment status as well as the law concerning re-verification. As you see, it is so easy for employers to make costly mistakes. For the 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.
  2. Employer’s Reverifications Violate NLRA

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	cinelease_1422644139_280.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	2.4 KB 
ID:	1210
    As an immigration attorney and former NLRB attorney, I am always fascinated when immigration law and immigration law overlap. That was the case in Cinelease, Inc., JD(SF)-33-77 (July 2017), where an Administrative Law Judge for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found an employer, Cinelease, to have violated Sections 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by actions related to reverifying employees’ work authorization documents.

    The issue of reverification arose after the Teamsters Union filed a petition with the NLRB seeking an election of the company’s warehouse employees. Within two weeks, Cinelease’s operations manager had a meeting with an employee and told how him that his work permit had expired. The employer said they learned of this information from another worker.

    Because of this information, Cinelease contacted their legal counsel, who advised to conduct an internal I-9 audit to verify all employees’ documentation. At that time, Cinelease did not have a procedure in place to conduct such an audit and had not been reverifying immigration documentation. Their immigration counsel gave Cinelease instructions from on how to conduct the audit although Cinelease’s managers and legal counsel could not agree on whether they were told to not re-verify green cards.

    Pursuant to the instructions, Cinelease’s HR manager reviewed all the employees’ I-9 forms and made a list of those employees with expired documentation. The list did not differentiate between expired green cards and expired work permits. (An employee’s green card or permanent residence does not end at the end of the employee’s green card and it is unlawful, under the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA), for an employer to reverify an employee’s green card status.)

    The company-wide audit showed 17 employees out of 165 employees had “expired work papers; seven of the 17 employees were warehouse employees. Next, Cinelease began calling in the 17 employees one by one and informing them they had expired work papers and to provide up to date documentation. Some of the employees had not provided updated work permits to Cinelease on a regular basis and only when Cinelease haphazardly requested such. One employee, Hugo Martinez, was unable to provide a current work permit; thus, Cinelease suspended him until December 18, 2016, one day after the NLRB conducted union election.

    Following reverifications of the employees’ documentation, attendance at union meetings declined. The union election ended at a tie. Additionally, the day after the election, suspended employee Martinez was told by Cinelease management that he could take more time to get new documentation.

    In concluding the requests to reverify employees’ employment authorization documents were a violation of Section 8 (a)(1) of the NLRA, the ALJ stated that normally this would not be a violation of the NLRA; rather, it is required under immigration law for work permits. However, the NLRB has previously found this action is unlawful if conducted in retaliation for union activity.

    Thus, the question is whether Cinelease’s actions were retaliatory. As the ALJ stated: “It is perfectly clear the documentation was not requested as part of the Respondent’s ordinary practice of rechecking work authorizations. Rather, such large-scale rechecks of work authorizations was unprecedented.

    Cinelease argued it was just attempting to comply with immigration law. However, Cinelease also rechecked permanent residents, which under immigration law is prohibited. Even for permanent residents, Cinelease requested reverification of their cards, including those whose green cards had not expired. Ultimately, the ALJ found the reverifications were retaliatory and motivated by anger at the union campaign and Martinez for his union support. Thus, they violated the NLRA.

    The ALJ also found the suspension of Martinez was unlawful. This is interesting in that under immigration law, Cinelease took the correct action when it discovered his unauthorized status. But it did it for retaliatory reasons; thus, the ALJ found a violation. For a remedy, Martinez must provide proof of work authorization before Cinelease can put him back on the payroll.

    It will be interesting to see if Cinelease appeals the ALJ’s decision. I will keep you informed.
  3. NetJets Services Pays $41,480 to Settle Immigration Claim

    By Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NetJets_r_cutout_806x235 (without black circle).jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	12.0 KB 
ID:	1072

    The Office of Special Counsel for Immigrated-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC), a division of the Justice Department, reached an agreement with NetJets Services Inc. (NetJets), a business that provides private aviation services based out of Columbus, Ohio. In resolving the allegations that that NetJets violated the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by discriminating against work-authorized immigrants, it agrees to pay a $41,480 civil penalties.

    The investigation found that NetJets improperly required newly hired, work-authorized non-U.S. citizens to present specific documents to prove their employment eligibility while not requiring similarly-situated U.S. citizens. The investigation further found that existing employees who were legal permanent residents (green card holders) were subjected to unnecessary post-employment reverification of their employment eligibility because of their immigration status and that employees who had become naturalized U.S. citizens after they were hired were required to present more and different documents than necessary to establish their citizenship status. All of NetJets’ actions were citizenship discrimination, which is prohibited by the INA’s anti-discrimination.

    Besides paying the $41,480 civil penalty, the settlement agreement requires NetJets to have its human resources staff trained by OSC on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA and be subject to monitoring by the OSC for a period of two years, including providing written reports to determine compliance upon the request of OSC.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NetJets_r_cutout_806x235 (without black circle).jpg 
Views:	143 
Size:	12.0 KB 
ID:	1071  
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: