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

[gregcrs2 1,778]

4 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

The hard truth is that what the employer is doing is highly illegal and also that there are other people who have successfully fought illegal practices like this. 

 

I don't understand the pessimism here. It looks like people here are OK with employers breaking the law. 

It's not about pessimism, it's about reality.  There are always at least two sides to a story.  Nobody should break the law but it happens every day.  I'm not believing the entire story as it defies what I know as common hiring practices.  

[Amadia 711]

8 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

I don't understand the pessimism here. It looks like people here are OK with employers breaking the law.

The reason for pessimism is due to things having the capability of going wrong. The world and its people are not perfect.

 

Nobody is "ok with employers breaking the law" but we do show that there are always 3 sides to any story - yours, theirs and the truth. The company can choose to do their will; be it wrong, illegal or otherwise.....it's THEIR choice so they will face the consequences.

 

Anyways, no sense in beating a dead horse. Have a wonderful day my VJers! 

[Orangesapples 1,954]

11 minutes ago, gregcrs2 said:

It's not about pessimism, it's about reality.  There are always at least two sides to a story.  Nobody should break the law but it happens every day.  I'm not believing the entire story as it defies what I know as common hiring practices.  

Why wouldn't you believe the story? It's not common but it does happen. There's a pinned thread about it actually. 

 

Employers have no right to break immigration law and decide which legal status is better for them. Once the US government has given someone the right to unrestricted work an employer has no right to judge that status and deem it better or worse than another status. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Orangesapples

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

30 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

The hard truth is that what the employer is doing is highly illegal and also that there are other people who have successfully fought illegal practices like this. 

 

I don't understand the pessimism. It looks like people here are OK with employers breaking the law. 

the hard truth is the company is doing something that could be perceived as illegal and could equally perceived to be a misunderstanding by an over eager employee (the hiring manager) or the applicant (the op), if the company is forced to hire you to prevent a lawsuit, I feel your chances of doing something minor in the future could leave you open to termination, you will be under increased scrutiny at a minimum.

 

If you intend on living in your general location for years to come, I have found most professions to be closer and people are known within your professional circle, either by reputation or actions. A short tem win with MS could lead to a long term uphill battle to overcome perception.

 

Ultimately the choice in how to proceed is yours but please be aware of the ramifications for any actions you take.

[gregcrs2 1,778]

2 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

Why wouldn't you believe the story? It's not common but it does happen. There's a pinned thread about it actually. 

 

Employers have no right to break immigration law and decide which legal status is better for then. Once the US government has given someone the right to unrestricted work an employer has no right to judge that status and deem it better or worse. 

I'm not believing the story because of the following:

In a major corporation, you would rarely only interview the hiring manager.  Typically you would also interview with an HR Rep and possibly another manager.  

Typically, a hiring manager does not communicate by email with candidates after the interview.  It's done over the phone.

Typically, a hiring decision is not made the next day.  There's a process to be followed such as rating the candidates, discussing the candidates strengths & weaknesses with HR, providing a hiring recommendation, etc.  Typically, the hiring manager does not tell a candidate I want to hire you, that's done by HR.

 

[pauli 49]

26 minutes ago, gregcrs2 said:

It's not about pessimism, it's about reality.  There are always at least two sides to a story.  Nobody should break the law but it happens every day.  I'm not believing the entire story as it defies what I know as common hiring practices.  

According to what you know as common hiring practices, when and under what circumstance can an employer ask an applicant for his or her immigration status and proof thereof?

[Crazy Cat 42,229]

47 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

It looks like people here are OK with employers breaking the law. 

Not a single poster has said it is OK to break the law...

[Orangesapples 1,954]

8 minutes ago, gregcrs2 said:

I'm not believing the story because of the following:

In a major corporation, you would rarely only interview the hiring manager.  Typically you would also interview with an HR Rep and possibly another manager.  

Typically, a hiring manager does not communicate by email with candidates after the interview.  It's done over the phone.

Typically, a hiring decision is not made the next day.  There's a process to be followed such as rating the candidates, discussing the candidates strengths & weaknesses with HR, providing a hiring recommendation, etc.  Typically, the hiring manager does not tell a candidate I want to hire you, that's done by HR.

 

All of those things (hiring decision on the next day, hiring manager emailing instead of calling, only involving HR later) have happened to me with major corporations. So they sound perfectly normal. 

 

5 minutes ago, pauli said:

According to what you know as common hiring practices, when and under what circumstance can an employer ask an applicant for his or her immigration status and proof thereof?

They can ask them if they're authorized to work in the US at any time. Then once the person is hired they have to present I9 documents within 3 days of their start date (they can do it before the start date of course) and the employer must accept any document or combination of documents that meets the I9 requirements. The employer is free to also do e-verify once I9 has been filled. 

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

8 minutes ago, pauli said:

According to what you know as common hiring practices, when and under what circumstance can an employer ask an applicant for his or her immigration status and proof thereof?

  Where I  work every person is subject to that very question , even if they are only collecting the trash.  It is perfectly legal if it is a requirement for some aspect of the job.  

[pauli 49]

5 minutes ago, NigeriaorBust said:

  Where I  work every person is subject to that very question , even if they are only collecting the trash.  It is perfectly legal if it is a requirement for some aspect of the job.  

They are asked their immigration status and proof thereof prior to be offered a job?  And the job doesn't specifically require the person to be a citizen? 

[Orangesapples 1,954]

5 minutes ago, NigeriaorBust said:

  Where I  work every person is subject to that very question , even if they are only collecting the trash.  It is perfectly legal if it is a requirement for some aspect of the job.  

Of course that every employee needs to be authorized to work in the US. This is very important. However, unless there is a legal requirement that only USC are allowed to do a certain job then employers cannot discriminate based on exactly what that authorization is - whether it's citizenship by birth or naturalization, green card or an EAD. They're all treated equally. 

[CheeseMonstah 87]

13 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

All of those things (hiring decision on the next day, hiring manager emailing instead of calling, only involving HR later) have happened to me with major corporations. So they sound perfectly normal. 

That's why he/she said "typically". Depending on the job those things don't happen (if you apply at a small business, it's typically only the owner that interviews you, and processes are less formal).

 

In major corporations such as the one subject of this thread, there are multiple approval layers, to the point where it's frustrating. And such corporations have strict policies on how to communicate with candidates. They have dozens of people whole sole job is to create policies and procedures to prevent liabilities such as lawsuits. That's how they can hire/fire dozens of people every day around the country and not go bankrupt with litigations. They know the law very well (probably better than you and I), even if lower level employees might not sometimes.

 

And you're the one taking OPs description of events as 100% true. What some of us are saying is, let's not jump to conclusions, maybe things didn't go quite like OP described.

 

Maybe they did act in a manner not in agreement with the law. You don't know that, and I don't know that, we only know what OP told us. If they did act in such a way, I'd hope things would get fixed in the future, the law is there to fulfil a purpose, and it would mean that purpose is not fulfilled. But in practical matters, OPs goal is to land a job. Threatening a lawsuit or forcing his/her way in, especially for someone so early in their career, is not a good career move and won't help achieve their goals.

[florida racer 73 200]

1 minute ago, Orangesapples said:

Of course that every employee needs to be authorized to work in the US. This is very important. However, unless there is a legal requirement that only USC are allowed to do a certain job then employers cannot discriminate based on exactly what that authorization is - whether it's citizenship by birth or naturalization, green card or an EAD. They're all treated equally. 

Listen, an ead will still stop you from enjoying certain type of jobs, ones that need a security clearance, especially one from the government. 

Did anyone stop to find out what exactly is required from morgan stanley for this job? Maybe it is one that requires a US citizenship or LPR. I am sure the company has specific hiring standards and the amount of posts I have seen negative to the company...... well it is disturbing.

 

i am a business owner and quite honestly, this topic would lead me away from hiring someone with an ead. Talk of filing complaints, eeoc complaints, why would I open myself up to that!

 

in my opinion, the op thinks that he/she has some golden ticket and that is not true. This happens every day to born US citizens, look for another job and move on.

 

i am all for people having a better life, I created my business from nothing and grown it into a sucessful corporation, but people need to get over this victim mentality, life is harsh and unfair...... unfortunally you have to deal with it.

 

so, I am sure I will be deleted and blocked by the admins but this is the truth, sorry to be the bad man to say it but here it is!

 

[CheeseMonstah 87]

4 minutes ago, florida racer 73 said:

 

i am a business owner and quite honestly, this topic would lead me away from hiring someone with an ead. Talk of filing complaints, eeoc complaints, why would I open myself up to that!

 

 

Ha, I was just thinking that myself. As a hiring manager, if I interviewed someone and became aware the person pulled stuff like that in the past, I'd respectfully "go in another direction, but keep their resumes in our database"

[florida racer 73 200]

4 minutes ago, CheeseMonstah said:

 

Ha, I was just thinking that myself. As a hiring manager, if I interviewed someone and became aware the person pulled stuff like that in the past, I'd respectfully "go in another direction, but keep their resumes in our database"

Folks i apologize for my outburst and if it offends you, but this is crazy..... I am not saying it is right or wrong but it happens everyday.

 

as a business owner I need to protectmy intreats and my business that I built and this thread is very disturbing to me from a business standpoint.

 

i wish the best for the op but their chance of sucess is slim to none. 

7 minutes ago, CheeseMonstah said:

 

Ha, I was just thinking that myself. As a hiring manager, if I interviewed someone and became aware the person pulled stuff like that in the past, I'd respectfully "go in another direction, but keep their resumes in our database"

Yes indeed