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

OSC Settles Immigration Claim against Culinaire International

Rate this Entry
By Bruce Buchanan, Siskind Susser

Click image for larger version. 

Name:	doj.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	6.4 KB 
ID:	807Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Office_of_Special_Counsel_Graphic.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	5.1 KB 
ID:	808 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	State_of_Texas_flag.jpg 
Views:	37 
Size:	2.0 KB 
ID:	810

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC), within the Justice Department, has reached an agreement with Culinaire International, a Texas-based catering and restaurant management company, resolving a claim that Culinaire engaged in citizenship discrimination during the employment eligibility re-verification process in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The investigation found Culinaire required lawful permanent resident (LPR) employees to produce a new Permanent Resident Card when their prior card expired, even though the INA prohibits such conduct. LPRs have permanent work authorization in the United States, even after their permanent resident cards expire.

Under the settlement agreement, Culinaire will establish a $40,000 back pay fund to compensate potential economic victims; pay $20,460 in civil penalties to the United States; undergo training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA; revise its employment eligibility re-verification policies; and be subject to monitoring of its employment eligibility verification practices for 20 months.

This error by Culinaire is a fairly common error made by employers, who believe they must re-verify an LPR card because an employee’s Employment Authorization document (EAD) must be re-verified at the time of its expiration. However, under the law, the expiration of an LPR card is treated differently than the expiration of an EAD card.

A copy of the settlement agreement, when it becomes available, can be viewed here.

Submit "OSC Settles Immigration Claim against Culinaire International" to Facebook Submit "OSC Settles Immigration Claim against Culinaire International" to Twitter Submit "OSC Settles Immigration Claim against Culinaire International" to Google Submit "OSC Settles Immigration Claim against Culinaire International" to StumbleUpon Submit "OSC Settles Immigration Claim against Culinaire International" to Reddit Submit "OSC Settles Immigration Claim against Culinaire International" to Digg Submit "OSC Settles Immigration Claim against Culinaire International" to del.icio.us

Comments

  1. Intecon's Avatar
    Well, this is just another bad law . . . what can we do but follow it? Employers SHOULD be able to require to see a renewed Green Card for continuation of employment because sometime in the ten years between the first issuance and the renewal, many things could have changed, i.e. the person could have committed an aggravated felony and could have been deported, perhaps in abstentia because he went underground; who knows? Or they could have left the USA for more than a year, lost their permanent residence as a matter of law, and then three years later returned on a Visa Waiver and just got out their trusty old Green Card out to show to the employer. Then, at renewal time, they cannot renew.

    So as some state supreme court justice once said, I don't remember who - law school was a long time ago for me - "It that's the law, then the law is an ***."
  2. Intecon's Avatar
    I made a typo . . . the quote should be "If that's the law, then the law is an ***."

    The *** stands for a word the editing of this site must have automatically put in, but it is a word that begins with an "a" and ends in "ss". Y'all know what that is, and it ain't a donkey.
  3. Retired INS's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Intecon
    Well, this is just another bad law . . . what can we do but follow it? Employers SHOULD be able to require to see a renewed Green Card for continuation of employment because sometime in the ten years between the first issuance and the renewal, many things could have changed, i.e. the person could have committed an aggravated felony and could have been deported, perhaps in abstentia because he went underground; who knows? Or they could have left the USA for more than a year, lost their permanent residence as a matter of law, and then three years later returned on a Visa Waiver and just got out their trusty old Green Card out to show to the employer. Then, at renewal time, they cannot renew.

    So as some state supreme court justice once said, I don't remember who - law school was a long time ago for me - "It that's the law, then the law is an ***."

    If employers would read the handbook, they wouldn't make this mistake. Green cards expire only because we want to put an up to date picture on the card. Permanent residence does not expire. Therefore, there is no need to require the presentation of a new green card. At the time I retired there was still one version of the green card issued from 1978 until about 1989 that did not expire and is still considered valid. Green cards issued prior to 1978 were declared void in the 1990s and those who had not naturalized were required to replace these old documents.
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: