3 ms·
An understandable situation. But by admitting this, your company is admitting liability for citizenship discrimination (8 U.S.C. § 1324b). Even though you are
by morpheuskafka 2y ago
An understandable situation. But by admitting this, your company is admitting liability for citizenship discrimination (8 U.S.C. § 1324b).
Even though you are not submitting a PERM and running into potential issues with fraud there, the underlying act of rejecting US citizen/LPR applicants is the same, so I don't see how this would be any different than, for example, the Apple case last year (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-25-million-landmark-agreement-apple-resolve-employment https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-25...) with a $25M settlement.
In the Apple case, the company did actually obtain PERMs for some of the positions, but they were only charged with discrimination against the un-hired applications, not anything to do with the the hiring/sponsoring of the foreign workers. Furthermore, the case did not even allege actual tossing out of US citizen resumes, but merely making the applications deliberately inconvenient to avoid actually receiving any unwanted "real" applications.
- underlipton 2y agoIs there someone who we could report this comment to? Get an investigation opened.
- morpheuskafka 2y agoIt would go to the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, USDOJ. I think they only take formal complaints from those who applied though (it is different from the regular EEOC process though--the government itself acts as the complainant). You could try just sending them an email.
- gmueckl 2y agoI don't think you interpret the Apple case correctly. They got fined for advertising PERM job postings differently from regular job openings, distorting the test in the view of the agency. That has nothing to do with the post you are responding to.
- MobiusHorizons 2y agoI am not a lawyer and don’t know the relevant laws or legal precedent, but what the OP is describing is very different that what Apple got in trouble for. > Specifically, the department’s investigation found that Apple did not advertise positions Apple sought to fill through the PERM program on its external job website, even though its standard practice was to post other job positions on this website. It also required all PERM position applicants to mail paper applications, even though the company permitted electronic applications for other positions. In some instances, Apple did not consider certain applications for PERM positions from Apple employees if those applications were submitted electronically, as opposed to paper applications submitted through the mail. These less effective recruitment procedures nearly always resulted in few or no applications to PERM positions from applicants whose permission to work does not expire.