Feds Punish Business For Engaging In ‘Citizenship-Discrimination’

[UncleBeer 244]

So why bother with all that e-verify malarkey if DOJ/O'bama/Holder are just gonna actively subvert the law?

Feds Punish Business For Engaging In ‘Citizenship-Discrimination’

A Texas catering business will pay the United States $26,400 for engaging in “citizenship-discrimination,” as part of a settlement with the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

Culinaire International unlawfully discriminated against employees based on their citizenship status, the Justice Department claimed, because it required non-citizen employees to provide extra proof of their right to work in the United States.

Culinaire has agreed to pay the United States $20,460 in civil penalties, receive training in anti-discrimination rules of the Immigration and Nationality Act, revise its work eligibility verification process, and create a $40,000 back pay fund for “potential economic victims.”

[belinda63 3,038]

A lot of businesses don't use e-verify which I don't understand as it is free and only takes a few minutes to sign up an account. It is discrimination to require any documents above and beyond what is stated on the I-9 for employment verification. That is what this company was doing, requiring more documentation from non-US citizens than was required.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So why bother with all that e-verify malarkey if DOJ/O'bama/Holder are just gonna actively subvert the law?

Had you read the article and understood the issue at hand, you could have saved yourself looking foolish once more. This isn't about using or not using e-verify. This is about discriminating against non-US citizens by making them produce more documents than required by law to demonstrate their eligibility to work. That's unlawful. Have you ever looked at an I-9?

“Employers cannot discriminate against workers by requiring them to produce more documents than necessary in the employment eligibility verification and reverification processes,”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/02/feds-punish-business-for-engaging-in-citizenship-discrimination/#ixzz3CFmhsgps

[belinda63 3,038]

Did you read my response, that is exactly what I said, you can't require any documents beyond what the I-9 requires.

How does this article make Obama/DOJ/US government responsible for what a private business is doing?

[UncleBeer 244]

It is discrimination to require any documents above and beyond what is stated on the I-9 for employment verification. That is what this company was doing, requiring more documentation from non-US citizens than was required.

I think it's a stretch to consider that 'discrimination', except by this administration's yardstick, where "white folks' greed runs a world in need". An extra 30 seconds of paperwork for an employer to feel confident he's not hiring an illegal (also a crime, I'm told!) is by no means onerous.

[belinda63 3,038]

When you begin making sense in your post I will continue the conversation.

The business is being fined for discriminating against non-US citizens. The DOJ is enforcing the non-discrimination law by fining them. So what is your beef?

[Karee 4,190]

A lawful permanent resident’s card expires, but their right to work is permanent, and in this case Culinaire was requiring employees to present a renewed permanent resident card to be verified as work-eligible. The Justice Department claimed this violated a provision in the INA that prohibits employers from requiring extra documentation from non-citizen employees.

Above from the article. So they got in trouble for not accepting an expired green card as proof they were eligible to work? Why have an expiration on the card at all?

[UncleBeer 244]

So what is your beef?

Businesses are required to check work authorization. But they're also apparently also required under O'bama's freewheeling 'interpretation' of laws to not check too closely.

... I will continue the conversation.

By all means, feel free to not participate if it's such a burden for you. .

[belinda63 3,038]

Read the I-9 then read employment discrimination law. In fact read the anti-discrimination warning at the top of the I-1. You can only ask for what is required on the I-9 and nothing more nor anything less as a way to establish eligibility to work. To do anything else is discrimination. What if a USC went to apply for a job and was asked for birth certificate, drivers license, social security card, voter registration card, and other documents to establish their right to work. Wouldn't you be screaming then?

So why should an LPR be required to provide additional documents above and beyond what they are required to provide to prove their eligibility? Why open the door to making the process so difficult for an LPR or other employment authorized person to obtain employment. This would lead to discrimination. Imagine if you went to apply for a job with the documents the I-9 required. Then you were told to come back with XXXXX document also. So you returned with that. Then you were told oh we also need XXXX document. How many times are you, as the non-US citizen going to continue obtaining and providing documents to meet the whims of the employer? How much time are you willing to spend obtaining documents you don't lawfully need to obtain employment?

The only thing I see as being questionable in this entire article is the refusal to accept expired 10 year green cards. I agree why does it have an expiration date if it doesn't expire. They used to not have an expiration date. I don't know the history behind that so I can't discuss it. But the solution to that is to use E-Verify.

BTW this is not an "Obama" thing. The I-9 has been around for at least 10 years if not longer.

Edited September 3, 2014 by belinda63

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Read the I-9 then read employment discrimination law. In fact read the anti-discrimination warning at the top of the I-1. You can only ask for what is required on the I-9 and nothing more nor anything less as a way to establish eligibility to work. To do anything else is discrimination. What if a USC went to apply for a job and was asked for birth certificate, drivers license, social security card, voter registration card, and other documents to establish their right to work. Wouldn't you be screaming then?

So why should an LPR be required to provide additional documents above and beyond what they are required to provide to prove their eligibility? Why open the door to making the process so difficult for an LPR or other employment authorized person to obtain employment. This would lead to discrimination. Imagine if you went to apply for a job with the documents the I-9 required. Then you were told to come back with XXXXX document also. So you returned with that. Then you were told oh we also need XXXX document. How many times are you, as the non-US citizen going to continue obtaining and providing documents to meet the whims of the employer? How much time are you willing to spend obtaining documents you don't lawfully need to obtain employment?

The only thing I see as being questionable in this entire article is the refusal to accept expired 10 year green cards. I agree why does it have an expiration date if it doesn't expire. They used to not have an expiration date. I don't know the history behind that so I can't discuss it. But the solution to that is to use E-Verify.

BTW this is not an "Obama" thing. The I-9 has been around for at least 10 years if not longer.

Every single thread Uncle puts up is an Obama thread, whether it is or not.

[JohnR! 5,495]

+100!!!

Nailed it.

A lot of businesses don't use e-verify which I don't understand as it is free and only takes a few minutes to sign up an account. It is discrimination to require any documents above and beyond what is stated on the I-9 for employment verification. That is what this company was doing, requiring more documentation from non-US citizens than was required.

[Karee 4,190]

While everyone is busy high fiving each other about how awesome their posts are, I guess they missed the part about them getting fined for not accepting an expired green card as proof of work eligibility.

I bolded, underlined, and italicized it this time. Somehow I doubt that will do the trick.

[belinda63 3,038]

Again, you did not read my response. I stated I couldn't speak to that as I don't even know why they expire since they are still good after the expiration. This is a matter of education for the HR people at the company.

[JohnR! 5,495]

There has to be much more to the story than is let out by the blog. It is perfectly acceptable that an employer requires an employee to present valid documents. In the event of an expired greencard no employee would have had a day in court for being asked to present a valid document or by being urged to renew it. As an employer, you can always rely on E-verify. By the time this gets to court it becomes evident the HR department of the company itself was way out of line with their demands.

If this got this high, in Texas of all places, there are very strong chances the employer was not acting appropriately.

Again, you did not read my response. I stated I couldn't speak to that as I don't even know why they expire since they are still good after the expiration. This is a matter of education for the HR people at the company.

Edited September 3, 2014 by JohnR!

[Karee 4,190]

So it must be lazy reporting then? Could it possibly be a dumb policy?

I think that it's another example of idiotic policies instituted by the government. Notice I said government and not Obama or Bush. But hey what do I know? I wear tinfoil for a hat.