Posts Tagged ‘DOJ Office of Special Counsel’

Hospital System Agrees to pay more than $257,000 to Settle Allegations of Immigration-Related Employment Discrimination in the I-9 Process

Monday, November 1st, 2010

As further evidence of increased enforcement efforts by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), its Office of Special Counsel for Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices (“OSC”) has just announced that it reached a the settlement agreement with Catholic Healthcare West (CHW) to resolve allegations that it discriminated against non-US citizens by requiring them to provide more documentation of work authorization than is required for the purposes of the Form I-9. This type of violation is often referred to as document abuse, a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which prohibits employers from imposing different or greater employment-eligibility verification (I-9) standards on the basis of a worker’s citizenship status.

Under the terms of the settlement, CHW has agreed to pay $257 ,000 in civil penalties as well as $1,000 in back pay to the charging party. The OSC reported that this is largest amount of civil penalties ever paid to resolve such allegations. Nor do the fines and the potential for additional back-pay end there. As part of the agreement, CHW has also agreed to complete a review (conducted by employees who are independent of the routine I-9 process) of I-9s for all non-US citizens and naturalized citizens hired at all CHW hospitals and medical centers to identify each instance of over-documentation and whether employees suffered lost wages due to the document abuse. CHW agreed to issue progress reports on the review every 60 days and to provide back pay to make whole any employees who suffered lost wages as a result of document abuse within 10 days of the report. CHW also agreed to provide to OSC full documentation relating to the review as well as a final report to be reviewed by OSC to determine whether CHW was in full compliance. CHW also agreed to implement a detailed system-wide written policy describing nondiscriminatory employment eligibility verification procedures and to conduct I-9 training with annual updates.

Such actions by OSC against employers—including Universities and Hospitals—are not new. As the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has stepped up I-9 audits, so has OSC increased enforcement of antidiscrimination rules as they relate to the I-9 process. As previously reported, for example, OSC recently filed suit alleging that John Jay College (“John Jay”) discriminated against non-US citizens by requiring them to provide more documentation of work authorization than is required for the purposes of the Form I-9. That lawsuit alleges that John Jay engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination, as at least 103 other people were also required to provide documentation beyond what was required and it seeks penalties of $1100 for each individual, in addition to compensation for each person who was impacted by the alleged discriminatory practice. Indeed, as we discussed previously,  OSC also entered into an agreement with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to share E-Verify information. Specifically, under the agreement, the USCIS will share data obtained from queries run through E-Verify with OSC, which will allow OSC to identify potential violations of the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. USCIS will also provide employer information to OSC, as necessary, when employers have engaged in potential misuse or abuse of E-Verify.

In light of these recent OSC enforcement actions, and the recent information sharing agreement, it is clear that the issue of discrimination in employment verification is a focus of both USCIS and DOJ. Employers should discuss I-9 compliance with experienced legal counsel and take all steps to ensure that employees responsible for I-9 completion are aware of the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. These steps include not only training employees on the “nuts and bolts” of these processes, but also training related to potential discrimination claims.

For more information, contact Elise Fialkowski at Efialkowski@klaskolaw.com

Share/Save/Bookmark

Department of Justice Approves Pre-Hire Immigration Inquiries for Certain Applicants

Monday, July 12th, 2010

Employers are often caught between the requirement to accept a valid documentation evidencing identity and employment authorization, on the one hand, and the need to administer a corporate immigration policy on the other.

One tool for administering a corporate immigration policy is to request that applicants confirm, early in the screening process, whether they will require immigration sponsorship.  Because applicants who are US citizens, permanent residents, asylees, refugees, and temporary residents under the 1986 amnesty law are protected from citizenship status discrimination, some employers believe that any pre-hire inquiry into immigration status is prohibited, even where the job applicant does not fall into one of those categories.

In an exchange of correspondence posted to his blog, attorney Angelo Papparelli recently received guidance from the Office of Special Counsel at the Justice Department, which is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions.  He  requested guidance from OSC about how an employer could determine whether job applicants presenting employment authorization documents were only authorized to work because of a pending application for adjustment of status.  Such job applicants will only be able to continue their employment authorization if their application for permanent residence continues, and may need to present evidence to USCIS of their change in job.

OSC clarified that because temporary visa holders and applicants for adjustment of status to permanent residence are not protected from citizenship status discrimination, “an employment decision made exclusively on the basis of an individual’s status as a temporary visa holder or as an applicant for adjustment of status to permanent residence would not run afoul of the anti-discrimination provision.”  Employers can, therefore, feel free to make decisions about whether or not to hire an applicant who is a temporary visa holder or an applicant for adjustment of status in accordance with their corporate immigration policy.

OSC also provided guidance on the kinds of inquiry an employer wishing to discover information about an applicant’s immigration status may ask prior to making a hiring decision.  OSC approved use of a somewhat complicated question, albeit one which makes clear what information the employer is requesting about an employee’s need for future visa sponsorship.  OSC approved the following two questions for inclusion on job applications, so long as they are asked of all job applicants:

1.  Are you legally authorized to work in the United States?   _____ Yes _____ No

For purposes of the following question “sponsorship for an immigration-related employment benefit” means “an H-1B visa petition, an O-1 visa petition, an E-3 visa petition, TN status and ‘job flexibility benefits’ (also known as I-140 portability or adjustment of status portability) for long-delayed adjustment of status applications that have been pending for 180 days or longer.”  (Please ask us if you are uncertain whether you may need immigration sponsorship or desire clarification.)

2.  Will you now or in the future require “sponsorship for an immigration-related employment benefit?”  _____ Yes _____ No

This guidance is particularly helpful for employers conducting job searches for technically trained personnel, many of whom may have initiated the permanent residence process with other employers.  If you need further guidance on particular situations, please feel free to contact your Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP attorney.

Share/Save/Bookmark

       
Copyright © 2012 Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP. All rights reserved. Review our disclaimer.
Disclosure: Law firm web sites such as this one are considered 'Attorney Advertising' by the State Bar of New York.