Gov’t Accuses Company Of Discrimination Over Employees Having To Prove Citizenship Status

[lostinblue 1,989]

Gov’t Accuses Company Of Discrimination Over Employees Having To Prove Citizenship Status

The Department of Justice has accused a business of discrimination due to the company requiring employees to show proof of citizenship for employment.

The DOJ claims that Nebraska Beef Ltd., a Nebraska-based meat packing company, “required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility.”

After receiving pressure from the government, Nebraska Beef agreed to pay $200,000 in a civil penalty settlement and said they will establish an uncapped back pay fund for people who lost wages because they could not prove they are in the country legally.

The settlement also requires the business to undergo compliance monitoring for two years, train employees on the anti-discrimination provision within the Immigration and Nationality Act, and to revise policies within its office.

Judicial Watch reports:

The DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices objected to non-U.S. citizens being “targeted” because of their citizenship status. “The department’s investigation found that the company required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility,” the DOJ claims. This could constitute a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the feds assert, because its anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from making documentary demands based on citizenship or national origin when verifying an employee’s authorization to work.

With the feds breathing down its neck the business, Nebraska Beef Ltd, agreed to pay Uncle Sam a $200,000 civil penalty and establish an uncapped back pay fund to compensate individuals who lost wages because they couldn’t prove they are in the county legally. Additionally, the business will undergo “compliance monitoring,” which means big brother will be watching very closely. The head of the DOJ’s civil rights division explains that the agency is on a mission to eliminate “unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment” so workers can support their families and contribute to the U.S. economy.

The DOJ issued a statement after the settlement saying they committed to protecting individuals against unnecessary discrimination in barriers to employment.

“The department is committed to ensuring that individuals who are authorized to work in the United States can support their families and contribute to our country’s economic growth without facing unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division. “We will vigorously enforce the law to remove such barriers where we find them, and ensure that affected individuals have a means of seeking relief.”

http://freebeacon.com/issues/govt-accuses-company-of-discrimination-over-employees-having-to-prove-citizenship-status/

[Ban Hammer 12,837]

[lostinblue 1,989]

objected to non-U.S. citizens being “targeted” because of their citizenship status. “The department’s investigation found that the company required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility,

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

What is the I-9 for again?

[decocker 7,198]

“The department is committed to ensuring that individuals who are authorized to work in the United States can support their families and contribute to our country’s economic growth without facing unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division. “We will vigorously enforce the law to remove such barriers where we find them, and ensure that affected individuals have a means of seeking relief.”

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I don't normally fall on this side of the argument regarding immigrants workers rights. But if the article is correct as written it makes no logical sense that non-citizen aliens who have a right to work don't have the documents to prove it. Nor does it make sense that an employer who can be fined for hiring illegal workers can't ask for said documentation.

The mind boggles.

[decocker 7,198]

I don't normally fall on this side of the argument regarding immigrants workers rights. But if the article is correct as written it makes no logical sense that non-citizen aliens who have a right to work don't have the documents to prove it. Nor does it make sense that an employer who can be fined for hiring illegal workers can't ask for said documentation.

The mind boggles.

it doesn't make sense to me either. feels like something is missing. they can't be illegal workers if they're authorized to work in the us.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

What I took away from it is that the illegals are suing because they are being forced to prove themselves (and cannot), whereas other US citizens are not being forced to prove citizenship.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

it doesn't make sense to me either. feels like something is missing. they can't be illegal workers if they're authorized to work in the us.

I agree. Something is missing. The OP as written defies logic. If they are citizens then they are legal. If they are not but authorized to work then they have been given legal documents authorizing them to work which would be easy to provide the company.

Me thinks given the poster that what the company is actually being fined for is demanding that US Citizens produce Immigrant type work authorization documents based on the US Citizens race. Google here I come. ..

[newacct 688]

I don't normally fall on this side of the argument regarding immigrants workers rights. But if the article is correct as written it makes no logical sense that non-citizen aliens who have a right to work don't have the documents to prove it. Nor does it make sense that an employer who can be fined for hiring illegal workers can't ask for said documentation.

The mind boggles.

It said they are asking them to prove "citizenship status", not that they are asking them to prove employment authorization to the extent asked by the I-9.

Edited September 5, 2015 by newacct

[Dakine10 5,452]

What I took away from it is that the illegals are suing because they are being forced to prove themselves (and cannot), whereas other US citizens are not being forced to prove citizenship.

Employers conduct employment verification on all employees. The law is specific on what documents meet that requirement. Employers are not allowed to require additional documents from one group. When the employer does this, they open themselves up to a discrimination claim. There are dozens of cases like this each year and the employers always lose.

Nothing in the above case applies to illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are not protected under the INA. The DOJ is acting on discrimination claims on behalf of legal aliens with work authorization.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

it doesn't make sense to me either. feels like something is missing. they can't be illegal workers if they're authorized to work in the us.

I agree. Something is missing. The OP as written defies logic. If they are citizens then they are legal. If they are not but authorized to work then they have been given legal documents authorizing them to work which would be easy to provide the company.

Me thinks given the poster that what the company is actually being fined for is demanding that US Citizens produce Immigrant type work authorization documents based on the US Citizens race. Google here I come. ..

I doubt very much "freebeacon" is representative of quality journalistic content.

Who writes a story while missing obvious facts? Some hack with a macaroon where his brains should be.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It said they are asking them to prove "citizenship status", not that they are asking them to prove employment authorization to the extent asked by the I-9.

Again, I think the OP is leaving something out. Businesses don't get fined for making sure their employees are legally authorized for employment.

I did a very cursory Google search last night and it appears that this company had a huge battle, using unfair labor practices, or at least was accused of using strong armed tactics, to bust an attempt by their workers to unionize. If true, my guess is that the company wasn't fined for attempting to verify workers eligibility, but for how they were doing so.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I can't really see where they spelled out the infraction, but here's the PDF of the settlement agreement:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/file/763396/download

[Dakine10 5,452]

I don't normally fall on this side of the argument regarding immigrants workers rights. But if the article is correct as written it makes no logical sense that non-citizen aliens who have a right to work don't have the documents to prove it. Nor does it make sense that an employer who can be fined for hiring illegal workers can't ask for said documentation.

The mind boggles.

Often what happens is a legal alien will present an A-list document to verify employment authorization. This could be something like a green card or EAD. The employer then says, "we need to see your drivers license and social security card". This employer is not allowed to ask for those additional documents for I-9 verification. The employer can ask for those documents for other reasons but it has to apply to all employees.