Discrimination EAD Card

[Trenz 52]

Hang in there. HR probably has to organize meeting with managers and tell them what was relayed from DC and decide how to play their cards. They'll probably do it first thing in the morning.

They can't not hire you as that would be retaliation. They have to bring you in and give you an opportunity to work.

I would have to agree with milimelo here. From what OP has described of this business it is a rather large one. As with most things in a company of a large size there are always endless amounts of people that have to be notified in formal meetings of what just occurred.

I agree with OP in regards to them not playing nice about it. At the very least they should try and maintain some civility. If this was an honest mistake then they should just own up to it and move on. At this point not hiring you is a legal liability they could be on the hook for.

Jeez. You would figure people would take a shine to someone wanting to work for their company so badly.

[TBoneTX 43,022]

Keep the number of the hotline lady close at hand, optimally on speed-dial. Do NOT give up or give in.

[TabeaK 516]

Keep us posted! If the company turns on you you definitely should have enough email evidence by now!

[Villanelle 4,121]

Well Im often in the minority on here, so I guess this thread is no exception.

I just want to point out- And I really do not want to get into a huge wordy debate where the nuances of words are picked apart-

so- technically its illegal for the company to hire her based on legal status (meaning ead over gc) So if she meets all the other qualifications and the company CHOOSES to hire her- because it is voluntary on their part, listing legal status as a reason for not giving her the job is a violation of law. With that said, the company can choose to not give her the job still and list another reason like general incompatibility, or the position went to another after reviewing the laws. Thats not illegal. As long as another legal and viable reason was given the company is in the clear.

She would theoretically have to go to court and have to prove the other reason was a made up one and thats nearly impossible to do as its rather hard to prove intent- but hey thats what juries are for. Its unlikely that she has the means to pursue this via jury or an attny would take this on in the we dont get paid unless you get paid type format.

The best outcome is what has happened so far- her showing the company that the EAD is the same as the PR employment wise and the laws supporting it and hoping that they still extend her the job offer. They may not. Again, they may decide that yes, she is legally able to work for them, but she is just not a good candidate because of "other reasons".

--------

As for do people work with EADs or are they worthless? Um yes, people work with them ALL THE TIME> Some people work with the for YEARS. They are not a document exclusive to the K1 program. Occasionally you run into issues with them like this where employers are unaware of what they are. You will find the same kind of problems sometimes with the SS card as it has the wording stamped on it 'only valid for WORK with DHS auth". Sometimes banks are like um what is this- can I open an account with this? When its like am I trying to work here or open an account - seriously?!

The immigration process impacts a great deal of people but its still a minority and the K1 process is even a smaller subset. So while people on here live and breathe it and talk about it like its common knowledge to most common folk, the terms, processes and paperwork are for lack of a better word alien. Its often unlikely they simply take your word for what official gov docs are or processes on how to handle stuff are. Handouts are key.

[Trenz 52]

Well Im often in the minority on here, so I guess this thread is no exception.

I just want to point out- And I really do not want to get into a huge wordy debate where the nuances of words are picked apart-

so- technically its illegal for the company to hire her based on legal status (meaning ead over gc) So if she meets all the other qualifications and the company CHOOSES to hire her- because it is voluntary on their part, listing legal status as a reason for not giving her the job is a violation of law. With that said, the company can choose to not give her the job still and list another reason like general incompatibility, or the position went to another after reviewing the laws. Thats not illegal. As long as another legal and viable reason was given the company is in the clear.

She would theoretically have to go to court and have to prove the other reason was a made up one and thats nearly impossible to do as its rather hard to prove intent- but hey thats what juries are for. Its unlikely that she has the means to pursue this via jury or an attny would take this on in the we dont get paid unless you get paid type format.

The best outcome is what has happened so far- her showing the company that the EAD is the same as the PR employment wise and the laws supporting it and hoping that they still extend her the job offer. They may not. Again, they may decide that yes, she is legally able to work for them, but she is just not a good candidate because of "other reasons".

--------

As for do people work with EADs or are they worthless? Um yes, people work with them ALL THE TIME> Some people work with the for YEARS. They are not a document exclusive to the K1 program. Occasionally you run into issues with them like this where employers are unaware of what they are. You will find the same kind of problems sometimes with the SS card as it has the wording stamped on it 'only valid for WORK with DHS auth". Sometimes banks are like um what is this- can I open an account with this? When its like am I trying to work here or open an account - seriously?!

The immigration process impacts a great deal of people but its still a minority and the K1 process is even a smaller subset. So while people on here live and breathe it and talk about it like its common knowledge to most common folk, the terms, processes and paperwork are for lack of a better word alien. Its often unlikely they simply take your word for what official gov docs are or processes on how to handle stuff are. Handouts are key.

I agree with mostly everything you said. I do however believe the salient point in this situation is that this person has already been hired by the business in question, meaning OP has satisfied all employment requirements to be the successful candidate. This would be an entirely different story had the OP not been hired; then yes, the company could very easily weasel it's way out of this situation by claiming an ambiguous reason for not hiring.

At this point, now that the USDOJ is involved and that OP has actually been hired, the odds of this company getting away with terminating the employment for an ambiguous reason just shot exponentially down. Even if they do attempt such a thing I can only imagine how that will look to the USDOJ. In the span of less than 24 hours something monumental come up which caused OP to lose the job? That is a tall order convincing authorities of that, especially given that OP hadn't even started yet. There is not one shred of performance based reasoning for which this company can stand on to deny OP's employment.

Trying to deny this employment opportunity to OP is a much greater liability (both legally and reputation-wise) than having OP come and work for the company.

[Villanelle 4,121]

Hmm I dont know if she has already been technially "hired"/ She said she signed an offer for a job they extended her. Im sure that offer had conditions like passing the drug test and background- which she did and being legally eligible to work. She got caught on them not thinking she was eligible to work.

She can successfully resolve the I am able to legally work and they should honor the job offer. It is the right thing to do. But will they? I dont know. Like I said they can retract the job offer and give a different reason and still be with in the law.

Legally (IMO) is she a threat to them. Umm no way no how. Youve got to be kidding if you or anyone here thinks she stands a chance against them in going to court. Do you know what happens when a small party attempts to take a large corporation to court? Even when they are in the quote on quote "right"?? Financial suicide. No way you have deeper pockets then them. Thats why no lawyer will take it on if you dont get paid I dont. You cant afford to out match them legal wise. They will bankrupt you. You will never make it to court. You will drown in debt. In paperwork and motions and frivolous expenses. And reputation wise. Again- sure its the moral high ground but again its nothing but a fly on the wall. Of course its the correct and right things to do, but its a nothing to them. One measly person complaining of not being hired because they are an immigrant. Theyd be lucky to get a 10 second sound clip on CNN. And then its over. It would be rebutted with an hour long 60 minutes special with Barbara Walters and 300 goodwill commercials if it was even noticed. Its how the game is played in reality.

So in all reality, the actual job position was not disclosed. The company was not disclosed. Thinking like a manager, I dont know how I would feel about having an employee who calls in the DOJ and reports us at the drop of a hat (?) So I dont know the higher ups can decide the offer was okay to go to her, the lower downs may feel uncomfortable, and yes the 'woman' said if she has 'issues' to call her, but if the local management gives her a bad performance review and fires her- good luck proving its because shes on an EAD- no ones going to be stupid enough to say that (I would imagine) and this firing could impact her career.

That woman wont be able to help her. It will be Im sorry the papers say you were fired because you stank at the job. Personally I wouldnt take a job if I felt I had to force them to accept me. So because its being all handled via email, I would actually speak to someone and get a read from them of if I am welcome or not if the offer is still good before deciding if I want to be there if its something that is career impacting. I mean if we are talking cashier at Wallyworld- thats something that can be left off future resumes if its a bad reference in the future and doesnt work out.

[ExPatty 502]

A lady called me and said she spoke to my employer and they will be offering me the job. She said she told them they couldn't not hire me because it was an EAD. She also said importantly, if I were to receive any retaliation from the company once I start there then I should contact them and gave me her direct number.

Awesome!

Don't worry about retaliation from HR. They are not very well respected in most companies and will not retaliate, since much of their life is dictated by mindless bureaucracy anyway and, even if ignorant of your employment status, they aren't ignorant of how illegal it is to retaliate.

Once you get the offer I wouldn't worry about this again, you'll be golden.

The company just emailed me to say they took a call from Washington, D.C from the Dept of Justice and that she wants to review this matter further with her management team. Hoping this is just a protocol.... but still no job offer.... YET.

Damn. That's HR for you, not much good to anybody much of the time. But like I said, bureaucratic. She/he simply has no idea what they are doing and will defer to somebody with authority, that's all.

HR cornered themselves by writing you the reason they can't hire you and its conflict with the law. I think you'll get the job. They basically have to hire you now as their written reason not to has already been addressed by the department of justice phone call.

Edited June 4, 2015 by ExPatty

[Hypnos 6,576]

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-immigration-related-claim-against-luis-esparza-services-inc

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-immigration-related-discrimination-claim-against-data-entry

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-lawsuit-against-international-hotel-chain-over-discrimination

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-immigration-related-discrimination-claim-against-janitorial

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-immigration-related-discrimination-claim-against-diversified

I'm sure these companies thought they could get away with it, too. They were mistaken.

[BritAbroad2015 61]

Thank you for all your replies. I really appreciate the advice and encouragement received.

I'd just like to clarify a few things. First and foremost, I'm not out to file a law suit. I am simply a dedicated and hardworking individual who has missed working and very much wants to progress in her career. I did not call the DoJ at the drop of a hat. I called them for advice because my job offer was withdrawn for a reason I deemed unacceptable, and so it seems so does the DoJ. They offered to call my employer to explain the nature of an EAD. Which I think is a sensible and rational course of action. Its an amicable route and the DoJ hold considerably more weight than myself when explaining the status. I hoped this would be the end of the matter.

With regards to thinking like a manager... well I think good managers definitely don't think like that at all. I think they are individuals who show compassion and also strive to understand situations they may not have knowledge about. Even if I was completely wrong in my thinking and an EAD was not a viable form of work authorisation... surely good Managers would respect and appreciate my right to gain insight into the law. Especially if the hold value for the job they had been offered, and were advised would start on June 8th!!

Also, if we are looking at a cashier at Wallyworld or a CEO of a large company.... why should that matter? I think that is a judgemental outlook. I am proud of my previous work experience and think that from what the company has told me, the only reason why they have retracted my offer is because I am not a permanent resident with an unrestricted work authorization.

Please also see the following link with examples of individuals who have successfully disputed discrimination against an EAD; http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-immigration-related-discrimination-claim-against-forever-21

[Trenz 52]

Hmm I dont know if she has already been technially "hired"/ She said she signed an offer for a job they extended her. Im sure that offer had conditions like passing the drug test and background- which she did and being legally eligible to work. She got caught on them not thinking she was eligible to work.

She can successfully resolve the I am able to legally work and they should honor the job offer. It is the right thing to do. But will they? I dont know. Like I said they can retract the job offer and give a different reason and still be with in the law.

Legally (IMO) is she a threat to them. Umm no way no how. Youve got to be kidding if you or anyone here thinks she stands a chance against them in going to court. Do you know what happens when a small party attempts to take a large corporation to court? Even when they are in the quote on quote "right"?? Financial suicide. No way you have deeper pockets then them. Thats why no lawyer will take it on if you dont get paid I dont. You cant afford to out match them legal wise. They will bankrupt you. You will never make it to court. You will drown in debt. In paperwork and motions and frivolous expenses. And reputation wise. Again- sure its the moral high ground but again its nothing but a fly on the wall. Of course its the correct and right things to do, but its a nothing to them. One measly person complaining of not being hired because they are an immigrant. Theyd be lucky to get a 10 second sound clip on CNN. And then its over. It would be rebutted with an hour long 60 minutes special with Barbara Walters and 300 goodwill commercials if it was even noticed. Its how the game is played in reality.

So in all reality, the actual job position was not disclosed. The company was not disclosed. Thinking like a manager, I dont know how I would feel about having an employee who calls in the DOJ and reports us at the drop of a hat (?) So I dont know the higher ups can decide the offer was okay to go to her, the lower downs may feel uncomfortable, and yes the 'woman' said if she has 'issues' to call her, but if the local management gives her a bad performance review and fires her- good luck proving its because shes on an EAD- no ones going to be stupid enough to say that (I would imagine) and this firing could impact her career.

That woman wont be able to help her. It will be Im sorry the papers say you were fired because you stank at the job. Personally I wouldnt take a job if I felt I had to force them to accept me. So because its being all handled via email, I would actually speak to someone and get a read from them of if I am welcome or not if the offer is still good before deciding if I want to be there if its something that is career impacting. I mean if we are talking cashier at Wallyworld- thats something that can be left off future resumes if its a bad reference in the future and doesnt work out.

Just some quotes from this thread in case you had not read them:

"I recently accepted a job offer and have been through the drugs screen and reference check. These have all come back successfully."

"To me this information seems to support my belief that I should not be discriminated against. However, I did call the worker hotline and speak to attorney who basically said it wasn't worth the hassle of pursuing it."

"I've signed an offer letter, which simply just states I need to legally be allowed to work in the USA."

"I completely understand that companies need to protect themselves, it just seems a little late in the process to inform me. Especially when I'm meant to be starting Monday and have turned down other jobs and interviews."

To answer some of your points:

-Yes. OP has been hired at this point.

-OP signed a letter stating she was legally able to work. OP was not "caught" in anything. This company was aware she was legally able to work there. End of story.

-This company has backed itself into a corner at this juncture with providing the sole reason for not employing OP due to immigration status. They cannot retroactively go back and claim another reason at this point

-OP understands a legal fight on their own would be costly and probably ineffective, hence the involvement of the USDOJ. They are tasked with taking up legal action if necessary in these situations. Legally speaking, OP on their own is not a threat, but ponder for a moment the virtually unlimited resources the USDOJ has. They can easily outpace any company if they felt it necessary.

-Sure, the company could fire OP later on into the job, but they would be treading on very thin ice with the USDOJ already. Would it be easy to prove OP was let go for fictitious reasons? Of course not; but would a company want to risk the USDOJ breathing down their neck? I think it would be easiest to avoid that at this point.

Additionally, while you may see these issues as non-starters, to many of us, these issues are at the core of immigration. As OP said, it would not matter if this were a Walmart cashier's job or a job as a CEO, the rules are clear and unambiguous. It is the principle of the matter. Companies should NEVER be given a free pass on this issue no matter if the job was trivial in the eyes of some or important in the eyes of all.

EADs are issued for a reason. OP has taken the completely legitimate and legal route of pursuing employment and should never be penalized for that. If companies are given the green light to continue this behaviour, what point would there even be for EADs? None. Laws are there to protect new immigrants from such discrimination as this, and I for one will not stand for anyone being discriminated against due to their immigration status. As many people have said here, this is as good of issue as any to actively fight.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Trenz

[BritAbroad2015 61]

Hi. Thought I would update on this saga. So the company I'm supposed to start work for on Monday has still not contacted me since yesterday. I really want to contact them to get an update... but am sitting tight until I hear from them for the time being.

I'm definitely out of my league on this, but hoping patience and common sense will see a good result.

[Villanelle 4,121]

Thank you for all your replies. I really appreciate the advice and encouragement received.

I'd just like to clarify a few things. First and foremost, I'm not out to file a law suit. I am simply a dedicated and hardworking individual who has missed working and very much wants to progress in her career. I did not call the DoJ at the drop of a hat. I called them for advice because my job offer was withdrawn for a reason I deemed unacceptable, and so it seems so does the DoJ. They offered to call my employer to explain the nature of an EAD. Which I think is a sensible and rational course of action. Its an amicable route and the DoJ hold considerably more weight than myself when explaining the status. I hoped this would be the end of the matter.

With regards to thinking like a manager... well I think good managers definitely don't think like that at all. I think they are individuals who show compassion and also strive to understand situations they may not have knowledge about. Even if I was completely wrong in my thinking and an EAD was not a viable form of work authorisation... surely good Managers would respect and appreciate my right to gain insight into the law. Especially if the hold value for the job they had been offered, and were advised would start on June 8th!!

Also, if we are looking at a cashier at Wallyworld or a CEO of a large company.... why should that matter? I think that is a judgemental outlook. I am proud of my previous work experience and think that from what the company has told me, the only reason why they have retracted my offer is because I am not a permanent resident with an unrestricted work authorization.

Please also see the following link with examples of individuals who have successfully disputed discrimination against an EAD; http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-immigration-related-discrimination-claim-against-forever-21

The link you provided is the only one with a similar situation.

I really do hope everything works out for you- Im just trying to give you an alternative perspective, thats all. Do what you wish with it.

I think everyone agrees the reason the offer was rejected was unacceptable. But its like.. now what? In the here and now--- you called DOJ. Thats a fact. Whether you thought long and hard about it or it was on a whim. its a fact that it happened. The company has to decide how it feels about it. Does that make you a thoughtful employee that they can appreciate your thoughtfulness and care to have insight to the law or does that make you a risky whistleblower type??

As for what type of a job it is, I mention that because my thinking is IF you take the job and it doesnt work out, because I dont know if you are entering on a good foot or not- its all about perspective- IF it doesnt work out, IF its important to your career, can you take the hit?? A minor job like a cashier at a major convience store you can easily leave off a resume if it doesnt fit in with your career aspirations, but if this is a huge part of your career and it goes sour, whats going to happen?>

If you basically forced DOJ to make the company extend or honor the job offer and management is sour about it- you enter on the wrong foot. If its just a case of DOJ clarifying the law and the company is thrilled about it because they really really want you and are thrilled they can have you - then its champagne and caviar all around.

This is just my opinion though. Thats why I suggested feeling them out if its an important job to your career aspirations.

[BritAbroad2015 61]

Well thank you for your outlook, and I appreciate your best wishes in this working out. It felt like you were suggesting I should just admit defeat and move on. But like others have said, what is there to lose. Even if it is just to educate the company that it was discriminatory.

I called DoJ because in my opinion it was the right thing to do. The company confirmed that they would be sending me a letter retracting the offer and confirmed this via email also, for the only reason that I was not a permanent resident and they would not accept EAD! They wouldn't return my calls or reply to my emails. So I called the DoJ for advice and as mentioned they suggested they called to advise on EAD. Basically with the goal of fixing the issue right there, with the assumption it was just a misunderstanding.

Also, I just want to clarify that I think it makes me a informed employee.... not a whistleblower. I tried to reason with the company but it appears that this route was not resulting in any progress. Initially I didn't even tell the DoJ the company name until they told me the correct route of action was for them to place a phone call. I'm not trying to be a difficult or troublesome employee, but I applied for a job, accepted a job, carried out the drugs test (which involved my hair being cut) and provided ample references (whom I am aware have been contacted). I have bought new clothes for the role, but more importantly than this have told friends and family about my excitement at finally feeling part of the country by beginning this role and contributing fruitfully to society. The whole process has made me feel like I've now done something wrong. What would you have done? I do understand your viewpoint that the company may be annoyed that I pointed out they had been discriminatory towards me, but surely that doesn't hold any weight on my skillset as an employee. I shouldn't have to even think about that scenario, that the company would retaliate in such a way. And if that does happen, maybe they are not a company I would want to be part of. But that doesn't make it right. And why wouldn't I pursue the matter if the DoJ advised me to? The company could carry on this behavior with no fear of any ramifications.

I'm also taking the stance that the world is only increasingly becoming more interconnected. Yes we might be the minority right now, but companies need to start appreciating that more and more individuals whom are not American citizens will approach them for work. The EAD is a document used to help facilitate this and should be honoured/enforced in that way, And I guess I'm not going to just accept that they wont hire me for that reason only.

Clearly this is a raw subject for me as I feel deeply impacted by this experience. And once again appreciate everyones contribution to this thread!

[Trenz 52]

Well thank you for your outlook, and I appreciate your best wishes in this working out. It felt like you were suggesting I should just admit defeat and move on. But like others have said, what is there to lose. Even if it is just to educate the company that it was discriminatory.

I called DoJ because in my opinion it was the right thing to do. The company confirmed that they would be sending me a letter retracting the offer and confirmed this via email also, for the only reason that I was not a permanent resident and they would not accept EAD! They wouldn't return my calls or reply to my emails. So I called the DoJ for advice and as mentioned they suggested they called to advise on EAD. Basically with the goal of fixing the issue right there, with the assumption it was just a misunderstanding.

Also, I just want to clarify that I think it makes me a informed employee.... not a whistleblower. I tried to reason with the company but it appears that this route was not resulting in any progress. Initially I didn't even tell the DoJ the company name until they told me the correct route of action was for them to place a phone call. I'm not trying to be a difficult or troublesome employee, but I applied for a job, accepted a job, carried out the drugs test (which involved my hair being cut) and provided ample references (whom I am aware have been contacted). I have bought new clothes for the role, but more importantly than this have told friends and family about my excitement at finally feeling part of the country by beginning this role and contributing fruitfully to society. The whole process has made me feel like I've now done something wrong. What would you have done? I do understand your viewpoint that the company may be annoyed that I pointed out they had been discriminatory towards me, but surely that doesn't hold any weight on my skillset as an employee. I shouldn't have to even think about that scenario, that the company would retaliate in such a way. And if that does happen, maybe they are not a company I would want to be part of. But that doesn't make it right. And why wouldn't I pursue the matter if the DoJ advised me to? The company could carry on this behavior with no fear of any ramifications.

I'm also taking the stance that the world is only increasingly becoming more interconnected. Yes we might be the minority right now, but companies need to start appreciating that more and more individuals whom are not American citizens will approach them for work. The EAD is a document used to help facilitate this and should be honoured/enforced in that way, And I guess I'm not going to just accept that they wont hire me for that reason only.

Clearly this is a raw subject for me as I feel deeply impacted by this experience. And once again appreciate everyones contribution to this thread!

You have put it far more eloquently than any of us here could. There is quite literally nothing more to say other than what you just explained. Sometimes the personal story that accompanies these issues gets lost in amongst the various rules and regulations, but you have explained it very well here.

I can only wish you the best of luck with this situation moving forward. You are clearly in the right here and everyone (including that company now I am willing to bet) knows it. I may one day very soon be in this exact same position so I can only offer my gratitude for being altruistic in nature and taking up this fight for the next immigrant.

[TBoneTX 43,022]

You have put it far more eloquently than any of us here could. There is quite literally nothing more to say other than what you just explained.

Well, this post here --

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/551366-discrimination-ead-card/?p=7660107

-- also rather deserves enshrinement in the pantheon of all-time great VJ posts.