Advertise on ILW
Connect to us
Make us Homepage
Chinese Immig. Daily
The leadingimmigration lawpublisher - over50000 pages offree
Copyright© 1995-ILW.COM,AmericanImmigration LLC.
By Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law
In two bizarre cases, involving the same individual, the Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) found the complainant had not actually filed a charge with the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration -Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC), nor, receive a right to sue letter; thus, her cases were dismissed by OCAHO. See Jablonski v. Robert Half Legal, 12 OCAHO no. 1272 (2016), and Jablonski v. Yorkson Legal, 12 OCAHO no. 1273 (2016).
In a nutshell, Jablonski claimed she applied for paralegal jobs from 2006 to 2014 with Robert Half Legal and Yorkson Legal, two legal recruitment companies, and had never been hired for any of the advertised positions. Jablonski did not have a scintilla of evidence of why she was not hired, but alleged to OSC that it was due to her citizenship status. Furthermore, she alleged these recruitment companies must have been recruiting/hiring “an illegal or visa applicant and/or fraudulently posting jobs that are not filled on their website and other websites.”
Interesting, as a paralegal, she had difficulties following OCAHO rules concerning the filing of a complaint. As an example, she attached 54 pages of materials to her complaint even though no such “attachments are sought or encouraged” under OCAHO rules.
Ultimately, OCAHO found, based upon written responses from OSC, that Jablonski’s assertions that she filed charges with the OSC on October 10, 2014, were incorrect. The true facts were that Jablonski attempted to file a charge with OSC, but OSC responded to Jablonski that she needed to provide “specific information” about the discrimination. Jablonski responded to the letter but without specific information; thus, the OSC dismissed her charges for “lack of reasonable cause.” The OSC never provided her a letter stating she had the right to file a complaint with the OSC.
Without Jablonski providing any information of discrimination, the OSC did not conduct an investigation nor issue her a “90 day” (also sometimes referred to as “right to sue”) letter. Thus, OCAHO had no basis of hearing the case and it was dismissed without leave to amend.
The lesson of those cases is anyone can attempt to file an action with the OSC (or a court), but one must have evidence of discrimination or a violation of the law for the case to go forward. The argument that I must have been discriminated against because I was not hired is a ludicrous charge and will be dismissed by a government agency or court on every occasion it is filed