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. IER Settles with Setpoint Systems Over Discrimination Against Non-Citizens

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC



    The Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), a Division of the Justice Department, has reached a settlement with Setpoint Systems Inc., an Ogden, Utah, engineering company. The settlement resolves an investigation into whether the company engaged in hiring discrimination against non-U.S. citizens protected under the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) anti-discrimination provision.

    The investigation found that from 2015 to 2017, Setpoint Systems had an unlawful policy of hiring only U.S. citizens for professional positions and refusing to consider otherwise qualified non-U.S. citizens based on the company’s erroneous understanding of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). ITAR regulates specific exports of defense articles and services and limits the access of certain sensitive information to U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, lawful permanent residents, asylees, and refugees. ITAR does not authorize employers to only hire U.S. citizens. The anti-discrimination provision of the INA makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual in the recruitment and hiring process based on citizenship status, unless authorized by law.

    Under the settlement agreement, Setpoint Systems will pay $17,475 in civil penalties to the United States for the alleged unfair immigration-related employment practices; train its Human Resources personnel on their legal obligations to not discriminate by viewing a free online IER webinar presentation; review and revise, if necessary, any existing employment policies that relate to nondiscrimination based on non-U.S. citizenship status; ensure all job advertisements have been reviewed by legal counsel or an employee who is trained on anti-discrimination laws; post notices informing workers about their rights under the INA’s anti-discrimination provision; and be subject to departmental monitoring and reporting requirements for three years.

    This settlement is another indication that the federal government is serious about cracking down on discrimination based on whether one is or is not a U.S. citizen. For answers to many other questions related to the IER 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. OSC Issues TAL related to Export Control Laws

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

Name:	ITAR.jpg 
Views:	73 
Size:	3.2 KB 
ID:	1058
    The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) issued a Technical Assistance Letter (TAL), dated March 31, 2016, stating that an employer may violate the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by asking questions when verifying employees’ citizenship status under U.S. export control laws, including the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and/or requiring employees to present documents establishing their citizenship or immigration status to ensure the employer’s compliance with U.S. export control regulations.

    Before we discuss the specifics of this matter, it is important to remember OSC’s TALs can be helpful in analyzing potential violations but they do not carry the weight of an agency or court decision.

    U.S. citizens and nationals, refugees, asylees, and recent lawful permanent residents are protected from citizenship status discrimination under the INA, and are also considered “U.S. persons” under ITAR and EAR. As noted in a February 25, 2013 TAL, ITAR “does not impose requirements on U.S. companies concerning the recruitment, selection, employment, promotion or retention of a foreign person.” Instead, ITAR requires that employers obtain export licenses for non-U.S. person employees if their positions require access to information governed by ITAR. As a result, ITAR does not limit the categories of work-authorized non-U.S. citizens an employer may hire.

    Furthermore, the OSC issued another TAL, dated October 6, 2010, stating an employer that implements a document verification process to determine only a new employee’s immigration or citizenship status to comply with export control laws is unlikely to violate the anti-discrimination provision if the document verification process is separate and distinct from the employment eligibility verification process. However, it is vital that the separate and distinct processes do not appear to be integrated.

    The proposed questions, being discussed in the TAL, to be asked by employers or their staffing agencies, to job applicants or newly-hired employees, would be prefaced with a statement that the questions relate to “Export Control Laws” and one does not have to answer these questions, if one does not wish to be considered for positions whose activities are subject to the Export Control Laws. However, the proposed document also states if you wish to be considered for these positions, you must answer these questions:

    1. I am one of the following: (a) a citizen of the United States; (b) a lawful permanent resident of the United States; or (c) a person admitted into the United States as an asylee or refugee: YES or NO; 2. If you answered “NO” to Question 1, please indicate your (a) Citizenship; and (b) U.S. Immigration Status.

    The OSC states that if an employer is hiring for at least some positions not subject to export control laws, it discourages asking the proposed questions for positions that are not subject to export control laws in order to avoid generating confusion among applicants or human resources personnel about the need for this information. Again as previously stated, the OSC cannot make a determination of the lawful or unlawful nature of the questions involving a specific case.
    Furthermore, asking questions to job applicants about their immigration or citizenship status for positions that are subject to export control laws may deter refugees and asylees, who are protected from citizenship status discrimination, from applying due to a misunderstanding about their eligibility for the position.

    Despite this discouragement, the OSC further opines an employer’s proposed questions of all job applicants or new hires, to determine only whether the employer will need an export license for certain individuals for particular positions, is unlikely to violate the INA’s prohibition against citizenship status discrimination. But if the employer rejected a protected individual’s application based on that individual’s answers, the employer may be engaging in citizenship status discrimination.

    As the above TAL and previously issued TALs demonstrate, the subject of questions and information relate to ITAR and EAR is very complicated and needs the input of an experienced immigration attorney.
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: