I-9 E-Verify Immigration Compliance

By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC



In Thompson v. Sanchez Auto Services, LLC, 12 OCAHO no. 1302 (May 2017), OCAHO dismissed a complaint filed by a former employee of Sanchez Auto.

In their decision, the Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) highlighted a couple of key points to remember in the application of whether an employer’s actions violate 8 U.S.C §1324b – the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). First, the complainant must be a protected individual – meaning a U.S. citizen; a permanent resident, who is not eligible for naturalization or less than six months has occurred since becoming eligible for naturalization; an asylee; or a refugee. In this case, Mr. Thompson became a permanent resident on September 25, 1994 and alleged discrimination between June 2012 and January 2013. Thus, Mr. Thompson was not a protected individual because he had been a permanent resident for about 18 years.

The second point to be gleaned from this decision is that the statute only covers specific adverse employment actions - hiring, recruitment or firing of employees, retaliation and document abuse. Mr. Thompson alleged the employer failed to pay him proper wages. This is clearly not covered by §1324b.

Thus, for the above reasons as well as others (which will not be discussed in this article), OCAHO dismissed Mr. Thompson’s complaint.

Tags: 1324b, discrimination, ocaho, protected individual