• Services
  • Attorneys
  • Media & Insights
  • Online Payment
  • Join Our Team
Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. A description of the selection methodology can be found here.
  • Services
  • Attorneys
  • Media & Insights
  • About Us
  • Delivering Value
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Meritas
  • Contact Us
  • Online Payment
    A
    Alternative Dispute ResolutionAntitrust & Trade RegulationAppellate Practice
    B
    Banking & Financial ServicesBankruptcy, Creditors’ Rights, and Financial RestructuringBeer LawBusiness Law
    C
    Cannabis LawConstruction LawCooperative and Condominium Law (Co-op & Condo)Criminal Defense
    E
    Economic Development LawElder Care & Special Needs LawElectronic Discovery ("E-Discovery")Environmental LawERISA & Employee BenefitsEstate Planning and Administration & Wealth PreservationExecutive Compensation and Employment Strategies
    F
    Food, Beverage & HospitalityFranchise Law
    H
    Health Care & Life SciencesHealth Care ProvidersHigher EducationHospitals and Health Networks
    I
    ImmigrationInsurance CoverageIntellectual PropertyIntellectual Property Litigation, Arbitration, and Dispute ResolutionIntellectual Property Portfolio Strategy, Management & LicensingInternational BusinessInternet Law
    L
    Labor & EmploymentLiquor Law, Licensing, Manufacturing, and DistributionLitigation
    M
    Media Law & Creative Economy PracticeMergers & AcquisitionsMunicipal Law
    N
    Non-Profit Law
    P
    Patent Preparation and ProsecutionPharmaceutical / Medical Devices / Pharma ServicesProducts and Consumer Liability DefenseProfessional LiabilityPublic Utilities
    R
    Real Estate, Finance, and Land Use
    S
    SecuritiesSolar Energy
    T
    TaxationTelecommunicationsTrademark & Copyright Protection & Enforcement
    V
    Venture Tech & Emerging Growth Companies
    W
    White Collar Investigations & DefenseWorkers’ Compensation
    • New Jersey
    • New York
    • Pennsylvania
    • Blogs
    • Articles
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Resources

    Categories

    Citizenship Crime DACA Deportation Detention DREAM Act EB-5 Education Elections Employers General Immigration Government Green Card Hot Topics ICE LGBTQ+ Refugees Social Media Sponsorship Uncategorized Undocumented USCIS Visas
    Blogs > Immigration Matters > DOJ Settles Immigration Discrimination Claim...
    NM PR
    Visit Profile

    DOJ Settles Immigration Discrimination Claim Against Minnesota-Based Staffing Agency

    DOJ Settles Immigration Discrimination Claim Against Minnesota-Based Staffing Agency

    A recent announcement from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) reports that a Minnesota-based staffing agency has settled allegations of discrimination against noncitizen workers. The settlement involves the resolution of allegations that the chain violated the law in the manner it verified its employees’ employment authorization. This announcement, like others, highlights the consequences for employers that fail to comply with the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).

    Allegations of Discrimination Against Noncitizen Workers

    According to the DOJ announcement, an investigation determined that the company routinely required specific documents from newly hired noncitizen workers to prove their eligibility to work lawfully in the United States, while the company imposed no such requirements on U.S. citizen workers. Specifically, the DOJ determined the company was requiring lawful permanent residents to provide their Lawful Permanent Residence card (“green card”) and requiring some noncitizen workers to provide their Employment Authorization Documents in order to begin work. At the same time, the company would allow United States citizens to choose from the list of acceptable documents. Accordingly, the company imposed an additional burden on noncitizens during the onboarding process. The imposition of such a burden on noncitizens constitutes unlawful discrimination under the INA. For these reasons, the investigation concluded that the company engaged in unlawful and discriminatory practices involving the verification of work authorization pursuant to Form I-9, which is discussed below.

    Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the company will pay a civil penalty of $250,000 and make $100,000 available for a back-pay fund to compensate victims. In addition, the company will train their staff on the anti-discrimination provisions of the INA, and review and update their employment policies. Finally, the company will be subject to quarterly reporting requirements to ensure ongoing compliance with the INA’s anti-discrimination laws.

    The I-9 Verification Process

    Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, is a standardized form used by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for employment verification in the United States. Mandated by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Form I-9 is used to verify the identity and legal authorization of all employees who work in the United States. During the I-9 process, the employee must provide their employer with documentation that proves their legal status to work in the United States. Form I-9 provides a list of acceptable documentation, any of which is sufficient to establish employment authorization in the United States.

    Anti-Discrimination Under the Immigration & Nationality Act

    The anti-discrimination provisions of the INA, found at 8 U.S.C § 1324(b) and its associated regulations at 28 C.F.R. Part 44, prohibit discrimination based on citizenship status and national origin in the hiring, firing, recruitment, and referral of workers for a fee. These provisions also outlaw unfair documentary practices such as the one involved in this case. Finally, these laws make it illegal to retaliate or intimidate protected persons who file a discrimination-related complaint against the employer. Failure to comply with these laws can result in prosecution leading to civil penalties and other sanctions.

    The DOJ Civil Rights Division’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (“IER”) enforces the anti-discrimination provisions of the INA. Under the Biden administration, enforcement of these laws has been steady.

    To learn more about this blog post, or if you have any other immigration concerns, please feel free to contact me at info@norris-law.com or (484) 544-0022.

    NM PR
    Visit Profile

    Related Posts

    Amid Tech Layoffs, Demand for H-1B Visas Reaches New Highs Good News for American Businesses: H1-B Denial Rates Plummet Under Biden Write As White House Loses House Majority, what is Next for H-1B Visa Program?

    Share

    Tags

    #foreign workers

    Helpful links

    • About Us
    • News
    • Services
    • Blogs
    • Attorneys
    • Articles
    • (COVID-19)
    • Award Methodology
    • Events
    • Join Our Team
    Connect
    Online Payment

    Connect with Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • X
    • Instagram
    • Youtube

    Join our growing team

    We are looking for quality attorneys to help us do more for our clients. At Norris McLaughlin, each attorney has the same opportunity to succeed whether you’re at the beginning of a career or pinnacle of the profession.

    Learn More

    Subscribe to our content

    Receive timely legal information delivered to your inbox

    This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
    © , Norris McLaughlin, P.A., All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.
    VIEW OUR DISCLAIMER,  TERMS OF USE,  AND PRIVACY POLICY

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume you consent to our cookie policy. Learn more