HELP.. Denied a job for not having a GC yet... Is this legal?

[dxec 31]

Sorry to hear you got denied for your dream job! I will tell you this though, in all my job searches I have noticed if you get denied it's for the best. It is their loss and you should find somewhere that will appreciate you because more than likely MS will not. Hope you can find an even better job than your dream job soon!

[GEOntificator 273]

16 minutes ago, dxec said:

Sorry to hear you got denied for your dream job! I will tell you this though, in all my job searches I have noticed if you get denied it's for the best. It is their loss and you should find somewhere that will appreciate you because more than likely MS will not. Hope you can find an even better job than your dream job soon!

Thank you!

 

After @Lemonslice shared the link which describes a very similar situation I decided to not give just yet. I will follow the same steps as OP in that VJ post and see what happens. If HR in that case admitted the mistake and apologized then I do not see why I should not think that I am being discriminated. 

 

Once again, thank you all for your thoughts and information, I highly appreciate it. I will keep you posted about how it goes. Good luck to you all.

[Hypnos 6,576]

This does sound like textbook discrimination based on immigration status. Unless the job is specifically one requiring US citizenship (and if so they should have posted that in the requirements) then all they can ask is if you are legally able to accept employment in the US -- and of course as an EAD holder you certainly are.

 

I would absolutely contact what I guess is now known as the Immigrant and Employee Rights section at the Justice Department. It's already been linked but here it is again: https://www.justice.gov/crt/immigrant-and-employee-rights-section

 

You can file a form online or through the phone at  1-800-255-7688. Please don't just accept it and move on. Either they are not correctly posting the job requirements, or they are not correctly following employment law by discriminating on the basis of your immigration status. You are legally able to work in the US. That is all they need to know.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Hypnos

[GEOntificator 273]

1 minute ago, Hypnos said:

This does sound like textbook discrimination based on immigration status. Unless the job is specifically one requiring US citizenship (and if so they should have posted that in the requirements), then all they can ask is if you are legally able to accept employment in the US -- and of course as an EAD holder you certainly are.

 

I would absolutely contact what I guess is now known as the Immigrant and Employee Rights section at the Justice Department. It's already been linked but here it is again: https://www.justice.gov/crt/immigrant-and-employee-rights-section

 

You can file a form online or through the phone at  1-800-255-7688. Please don't just accept it and move on. Either they are not correctly posting the job requirements, or they are not correctly following employment law by discriminating on the basis of your immigration status. You are legally able to work in the US. That is all they need to know.

I just finished submitting the online form on that website. When I called it was past operation hours. I will give them a call tomorrow too.

[Hypnos 6,576]

Good luck. Please do keep us all posted. Immigration discrimination diminishes all of us collectively, so we're on your side.

[GEOntificator 273]

1 minute ago, Hypnos said:

Good luck. Please do keep us all posted. Immigration discrimination diminishes all of us collectively, so we're on your side.

Will do. Thank you!

[Carl&Ellie 10]

Wow, really interesting thread. Glad somebody referred you to the previous thread from a few years back. I thought this felt familiar...

 

Lots of luck with this @kvito28!

[Loren Y 2,748]

I'm not a big fan of Morgan Stanley anyway. I roll with Charles Schwab, you may want to try them out.

[GEOntificator 273]

17 minutes ago, Loren Y said:

I'm not a big fan of Morgan Stanley anyway. I roll with Charles Schwab, you may want to try them out.

They have no openings here in NC for positions that I can apply for. I already thought about them

[Loren Y 2,748]

2 minutes ago, kvito28 said:

They have no openings here in NC for positions that I can apply for. I already thought about them

Bummer, Keep your eyes open there, maybe something will open up. Maybe the guy Morgan Stanley Hires leaves Charles Schwab , and creates an opening for the exact same position at their office. Crazy as it sounds it is a small world really, and I have heard and seen stranger things happen.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Loren Y

[jdaveh 58]

 I may have missed it but who is sponsoring you to go from f1 to h1b. From student visa you have to have an employer sponsor you

[GEOntificator 273]

Just now, jdaveh said:

 I may have missed it but who is sponsoring you to go from f1 to h1b. From student visa you have to have an employer sponsor you

I am married to a USC. My AOS is based on immediate family eligibility.

[NancyLyz 58]

8 hours ago, kvito28 said:

I honestly never knew this. Is anyone here familiar with this situation? Is answer Yes false? If so, then there isn't really much to argue. I still do not understand why I should answer Yes while I am waiting for GC to be approved. Any experts in this?

As an HR myself and going through the whole Adjustment of status process, I'd say you should definitely answer yes to the question: "are you authorized to work in the US". As long as your EAD is valid or has been extended, you're authorized to work in the US as long as your application is still pending. 

 

The question: "will you need visa sponsorship to work in the US" is trickier to answer.  A failed adjustment of status application can result in a lot of things: 1. If you have other status to fall back on (let's say H1B or L visa), you can always reapply for adjustment of status in the US; 2. You have to leave the States and reapply for a visa then go through all the adjustment of status all over again; 3. You anyway stay and reapply; 4. You stay and you don't reapply immediately; 5. You just decide not to come back any more. 6. You have other status to fall back on and decide to apply for a different kind of status. 

It's a poorly designed question but remember, the only reason a company is asking this is to make sure that they won't need to sponsor you. 

 

Going back to getting your new job, if you have an attorney, you can probably ask your attorney to issue a letter explaining two things: 1. It's illegal to discriminate you based on your status unless the job does require the employee to be US citizen or Green card holder; 2. You have proper paperwork for I-9 verification and you're adjusting via family-based applications, which should provide you with a green card within a certain amount of time. (Include the USCIS page geo mentioned)

 

Worst case scenario, that they won't give you the job no matter what, you can probably just burn the bridge and sue them. I don't know the labor codes in your state but in Cali, employers will hate to be sued no matter what. 

 

Just my two cents, feel free to correct me if anything is not accurate.

 

 

[GEOntificator 273]

12 minutes ago, NancyLyz said:

As an HR myself and going through the whole Adjustment of status process, I'd say you should definitely answer yes to the question: "are you authorized to work in the US". As long as your EAD is valid or has been extended, you're authorized to work in the US as long as your application is still pending. 

 

The question: "will you need visa sponsorship to work in the US" is trickier to answer.  A failed adjustment of status application can result in a lot of things: 1. If you have other status to fall back on (let's say H1B or L visa), you can always reapply for adjustment of status in the US; 2. You have to leave the States and reapply for a visa then go through all the adjustment of status all over again; 3. You anyway stay and reapply; 4. You stay and you don't reapply immediately; 5. You just decide not to come back any more. 6. You have other status to fall back on and decide to apply for a different kind of status. 

It's a poorly designed question but remember, the only reason a company is asking this is to make sure that they won't need to sponsor you. 

 

Going back to getting your new job, if you have an attorney, you can probably ask your attorney to issue a letter explaining two things: 1. It's illegal to discriminate you based on your status unless the job does require the employee to be US citizen or Green card holder; 2. You have proper paperwork for I-9 verification and you're adjusting via family-based applications, which should provide you with a green card within a certain amount of time. (Include the USCIS page geo mentioned)

 

Worst case scenario, that they won't give you the job no matter what, you can probably just burn the bridge and sue them. I don't know the labor codes in your state but in Cali, employers will hate to be sued no matter what. 

 

Just my two cents, feel free to correct me if anything is not accurate.

 

 

I think that it is logical to assume that I am not going to need sponsorship in the future due to the nature of my GC application. I am asking the government to grant me permanent residency on the grounds that my spouse is a USC and not because I have any sort of skills. Unless I have a record of something that makes me inadmissible (which I do not) then I do not see why anyone would assume that I will not get a GC. Now, you can argue that companies do not know who you are and what kind of background you have. This is a fair claim but I think we are going into a broader discussion and area with this.

 

To keep it simple, I think I passed all interviews, was recommended to get a job and all that HR had to do was give an offer letter and make sure that I have a legal unrestricted work document. This did not happen because people in HR at that location are not qualified enough to be there and because of that I am going to miss out on something that I have worked so hard for. At the end of a day, law is on my side and anything else should be irrelevant. I decided to fight it. I do not have high hopes, but at least I tried. If I still don't get it I will move on knowing that I did all I could. 

[A&H2018 146]

Money Laundering US firms: A "US person" is the basic definition that person said. But for money laundering law it actually means anyone employed by a US company who has to deal with "Department of Treasury" rules. This means you could work for Morgan Stanley in Central America and stll cannot do anything with sancitioned entities. So even employees from Morgan Stanley in other countries need to abide by those rules and Morgan Stanley gives very expensive training to protect themselves. Also they will be giving very expensive training how to safeguard information and reaons around it. So no there is no need to be a USC/LPR to look at this financial data because there is already another layer and many trainings that protect them.

 

Series 7, etc exams...Lots of people I know on visas who worked at trading houses got them. You just need firm sponsorship. Also if you work outside of the USA and deal with us securities you can take the exams as well. They are license exams that is it.

 

That all said...You went from 0 to 100, real quick. You started at trying to get the branch manager to fighting for you and now to going straight to the DOJ. That lady in other thread, had written job offer and all the checks done. She also had direct written communication from HR. Truly her HR department was prolly rather dumb/lazy/naive.

 

Morgan Stanley is not dumb, they have given you nothing written. All you have is a vebral converstation by the branch manager. You even just said "I think", that should sum it up for you. Fidelity is not dumb eitheer. There is a reason none of these firms offer anything in writing there is a reason the HR is far-away entity who is not directly contacting you. The fact the branch manager is willing to listen and work is massive strength for you, both now and the future. Remember going all DOJ here, could cause that branch manager to get his bonus killed this quarter and no one else at Morgan Stanley any harm. You also seem somewhat truly upset by the discrimination at play here just understand there is tons of discrimation very likely at various levels of MS and the entire industry and no you can not sue everyone. 

 

Lastly, not sure why you cannot answer the question simply as "no". The I-9 emphasis is on the employer to check, and employee to match the requirements. If your AOS was ever denied, you would just quit on the spot and go on your very day and lose that quarter's bonus. The heart of the question is to say "is this going to be any extra work for us". Going all DOJ on a massive financial institution who openly fights for work visas and knows all the rules ain't the best idea but maybe you will be the one who wins the great fight.