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

[GEOntificator 273]

5 minutes ago, A&H2018 said:

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.

 

 

 

 

So I am trying to make sense of what to conclude from your response. I think you suggest that I just let it go even though I know that what they did was wrong? Would you do that?

[azblk 338]

4 minutes ago, A&H2018 said:

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.

 

 

 

 

I have a different take. The HR person did what was safe by saying NO hire without consulting i-9 coordinator or  immigration department which am sure a big company like Morgan Stanley have.  The DOJ will simply explain they are misunderstanding the rules. I dont see this as Morgan Stanley trying to discriminate. They are simply misapplying the rules due to employee not doing due diligence. Some times you need a bear to advocate for you or nothing will move.

[A&H2018 146]

9 minutes ago, kvito28 said:

So I am trying to make sense of what to conclude from your response. I think you suggest that I just let it go even though I know that what they did was wrong? Would you do that?

You are working in finance, you are not working at google/telsa/facebook. Your goal is to build a bigger book and get a higher commision. You already have identified a firm with a manager who likes you a lot who is willing to hire you once he knows you are a LPR. So maybe he does have a spot or knows someone in another office who has one in 6 months time. Then you have an in with a good manager, a good manager feeds you better leads from day1. A good manager helps and gives more support to make sure you succed. A good manager goes to fight for you when the client randomly switches their account cause you answered a 5 minute call wrong. While you end up elsewhere and word gets around about the guy who called DOJ and you get a bad manager who now takes away your leads, who makes your life harder to succeed, who never fights for you.

 

Managers control how leads and how to explain what happens when accounts move away. You could make a higher bonus than a "good" manager, you could get fired in 6 months with a bad manager cause your book is not big enough yet.

 

Everyone in the industry has done it. If you cannot let this go, not sure what happens when your manager randomly moves accounts away to the guy whos been in the office for 10 years that is having a tough quarter. 

[GEOntificator 273]

2 minutes ago, A&H2018 said:

You are working in finance, you are not working at google/telsa/facebook. Your goal is to build a bigger book and get a higher commision. You already have identified a firm with a manager who likes you a lot who is willing to hire you once he knows you are a LPR. So maybe he does have a spot or knows someone in another office who has one in 6 months time. Then you have an in with a good manager, a good manager feeds you better leads from day1. A good manager helps and gives more support to make sure you succed. A good manager goes to fight for you when the client randomly switches their account cause you answered a 5 minute call wrong. While you end up elsewhere and word gets around about the guy who called DOJ and you get a bad manager who now takes away your leads, who makes your life harder to succeed, who never fights for you.

 

Managers control how leads and how to explain what happens when accounts move away. You could make a higher bonus than a "good" manager, you could get fired in 6 months with a bad manager cause your book is not big enough yet.

 

Everyone in the industry has done it. If you cannot let this go, not sure what happens when your manager randomly moves accounts away to the guy whos been in the office for 10 years that is having a tough quarter. 

Here is the problem... I do not have luxury to be unemployed for another 6 months to sit around and hope that I will still get the job when I am LPR. While my chances are low to win this fight, I think that it is better to speak up about it. 

 

This job would be lost anyway if I let it go and I would have to find some other job due to hardship that I do not really want to do. 

 

There is much more to this than what general public thinks about or would want to consider to judge it fairly. I am not out here making strategic plans for what may be 6 months later but rather speaking up about what I believe to be wrong. 

[Orangesapples 1,954]

14 hours ago, Roel said:

I want to say it's not illegal... It's something up to employer discretion I suppose. Also many Americans don't really understand what EAD is and they require more solid proof of residence.. might be also because EAD is not valid for a long time really, that's why they want more permanent proof of residency. 

This is just how I see this. 

It is illegal

[Orangesapples 1,954]

OP, please take a look at this thread:

 

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/551366-discrimination-ead-card/

[TBoneTX 43,531]

Two posts violating separate provisions of the site's Terms of Service have been removed, along with posts quoting.

 

VJ Moderation

[george8880 27]

2 hours ago, kvito28 said:

Here is the problem... I do not have luxury to be unemployed for another 6 months to sit around and hope that I will still get the job when I am LPR. While my chances are low to win this fight, I think that it is better to speak up about it. 

 

This job would be lost anyway if I let it go and I would have to find some other job due to hardship that I do not really want to do. 

 

There is much more to this than what general public thinks about or would want to consider to judge it fairly. I am not out here making strategic plans for what may be 6 months later but rather speaking up about what I believe to be wrong. 

Seems like you've made up your mind to fight it, so just be firm with the company and its HR / lawyers. Personally I wouldn't bring it anywhere close to the DOJ though, as some have suggested, for several reasons:

1. You never got a written offer, and everything was kept verbal, so Morgan Stanley, being a sophisticated company with a legal team capable of winning complex, billion-dollar cases, will no doubt have the resources to squash your case if you aggressively come after them
2. I work in finance as well, and it is a fairly small and gossip-y community. People definitely talk. There is absolutely no need to get blacklisted everywhere
3. The labor market is hot right now. If you are able to land a gig at Morgan Stanley, I am assuming you have a decent background and solid interview prep. There are plenty of bulge brackets looking to hire, and if that manager likes you, he can probably refer you to a couple places. Worst case, you revisit the job offer again with MS when you get your GC

Also, if you think about it, the best thing to come out of a lawsuit is that you get the job and work for a company that is actively looking to get rid of you; or you can make up some reason about how you won a victory for the equality of future immigrants... but no. Not worth it. Seems like you're really pumped up with righteousness right now, but I think you need to be really careful here. MS can really screw you up, especially if you want to stay in finance. Good luck though on whatever you decide to do.

[florida racer 73 200]

4 hours ago, george8880 said:

Seems like you've made up your mind to fight it, so just be firm with the company and its HR / lawyers. Personally I wouldn't bring it anywhere close to the DOJ though, as some have suggested, for several reasons:

1. You never got a written offer, and everything was kept verbal, so Morgan Stanley, being a sophisticated company with a legal team capable of winning complex, billion-dollar cases, will no doubt have the resources to squash your case if you aggressively come after them
2. I work in finance as well, and it is a fairly small and gossip-y community. People definitely talk. There is absolutely no need to get blacklisted everywhere
3. The labor market is hot right now. If you are able to land a gig at Morgan Stanley, I am assuming you have a decent background and solid interview prep. There are plenty of bulge brackets looking to hire, and if that manager likes you, he can probably refer you to a couple places. Worst case, you revisit the job offer again with MS when you get your GC

Also, if you think about it, the best thing to come out of a lawsuit is that you get the job and work for a company that is actively looking to get rid of you; or you can make up some reason about how you won a victory for the equality of future immigrants... but no. Not worth it. Seems like you're really pumped up with righteousness right now, but I think you need to be really careful here. MS can really screw you up, especially if you want to stay in finance. Good luck though on whatever you decide to do.

I was just reading some of the posts and it is true. Alot of HR departments, managers and other personsel do communicate with each other. If a applicant makes too many waves word will get around to other companies and the applicant may end up being blacklisted. Which means you will never be offered a job in that sector... at least for a top firm.

 

now of course no one will ever openly admit this but it does happen.

 

 

[Amadia 711]

Some might say discrimination but I would say each company has different needs and future goals. If a person has interviewed for a position but does not get it based on a temporary situation that does not bode well for the hiring company, does that make the company look bad for not taking an HR risk?

 

I suggest that the OP try your luck at another company....don't put ALL your eggs in one basket  

[Kaylip 8]

16 hours ago, kvito28 said:

That is my point. They did not make up anything. They told me that they cannot hire me based on my immigration status...

There you have it. End of story. They said they cannot hire you based on immigration status and your EAD doesn't grant you a protected status, it even says so on the back of your card. With the political climate right now, your status isn't secure enough for them to consider hiring you, especially if your position is in a high rank. They need to know that they can hire someone who can be with them for a long time. An EAD is a temporary document valid for 1 year-and can also be renewed. That's fine to them, but the fact that you have no status and can be deported at any time is not secure enough for them. If I were you I would thank them for the opportunity and ask them if there is any way that your file/application can be recommended for future employment upon receiving GC.

Most immigrants years ago had no formal education and EAD holders would have jobs but not high ranking jobs in prominent firms. H1B yes but not EAD holders. That's the reality of the situation.

When I received my EAD and started looking for jobs I soon realized how restricted I was because certain jobs prefer or require PR or USC. Even down to the SS card with the DHS AUTHORIZATION ONLY words inscribed across it also shows how "restricted" and limited the EAD holder is.

At this time you can choose to be humble and apply for employment in not so high rankings in firms. You stated that you need to work, well, working there would show your skills and effort so when you do receive your GC you can apply internally in the organization for a higher position and you would more than likely get it. I know you are educated and want to be paid what you are worth but this is America and each state has their own laws so if someone in MS got hired on EAD in Florida it doesn't mean an EAD holder should also get hired in Colorado. Just my 2 cents. All the best!

[Boiler 43,857]

Sounds like they will only hore US Citizens as anything else would be temporary.

 

But then life is temporary, tricky one.

[GEOntificator 273]

I certainly appreciate everyone's thoughts and time to respond to my concerns. It has been very informative and helpful for sure.

 

While it seems that many of you would choose to try your luck again after receiving LPR, I believe that fighting this is in my best interest based on my personal views and current standing. There are many more opportunities out there and if it is not Morgan Stanley then it will be some other company where I will eventually land a job. I am not gonna portray myself as a person who does this for the greater good, but to some extent this action will probably help out others in the future. HR will probably be much more careful in the future when someone like me comes around for the next time. There is something to be accomplished for sure. First, we will have to see what comes out of my claim I guess.

 

I also do not understand what is there to lose at this point. I feel as if I am being robbed of a very nice opportunity and all that because of my immigration status which is, heck confusing even for me but, nonetheless I have been granted unrestricted work permit by the government, therefore, it has to have some weight. I would not have this job anyway if I did nothing at all since HR already made a call. If things remain unchanged I certainly would not strive to work for the same company in the future. If my qualifications are good enough for them, they sure are for many other companies too.

 

My point - There is nothing to lose so I am gonna stand up for myself.

Edited July 13, 2018 by kvito28

[CheeseMonstah 87]

10 hours ago, NancyLyz said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

Here's another business advice (as reference, I'm a CFO in a private company, but have worked years in public companies):

 

They have dozens of lawyers on retainer. It costs them almost nothing to go to trial, as they already have the lawyers anyway. For them it's important to not be labeled/framed under discrimination, so surely they'll fight this with all they got. You (probably) don't have a lawyer on retention, it's going to take months and thousands of dollars to fight this. And in the unlikely case you win, they'll offer you the job but you'll forever carry the history of having sued them. If this is an entry level job, this is NOT the way you want to get in. Suing them is a lose-lose proposition for you.

 

Go for a different job in the meantime, when you get you GC, email the hiring manager again, and they might extend you the offer again.

[GEOntificator 273]

4 minutes ago, CheeseMonstah said:

Here's another business advice (as reference, I'm a CFO in a private company, but have worked years in public companies):

 

They have dozens of lawyers on retainer. It costs them almost nothing to go to trial, as they already have the lawyers anyway. For them it's important to not be labeled/framed under discrimination, so surely they'll fight this with all they got. You (probably) don't have a lawyer on retention, it's going to take months and thousands of dollars to fight this. And in the unlikely case you win, they'll offer you the job but you'll forever carry the history of having sued them. If this is an entry level job, this is NOT the way you want to get in. Suing them is a lose-lose proposition for you.

 

Go for a different job in the meantime, when you get you GC, email the hiring manager again, and they might extend you the offer again.

Why does everyone assume that I am going to sue them? I filed a claim and I am not going beyond that. I certainly do not have resources necessary to go into a lawsuit with this giant company. As I said before, if it worked for that British girl in another post, it may work for me. If not, I will move on and forget about Morgan Stanley. Is this so hard to understand?

Edited July 13, 2018 by kvito28