Company not accepting EAD, requiring GC to get hired.

[HRQX 4,145]

22 minutes ago, SmallTownPA said:

So no, its not a huge conspiracy.  HR doesn't want to risk hiring you with a TEMPORARY work permit.  Once you get the GC, your future in the US pretty set.

It's still illegal. Employers can't dictate which I-9 acceptable documents to accept. "Federal law also prohibits employers from conducting the Form I-9 and E-Verify processes before the employee has accepted an offer of employment." https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_citizenship.cfm OP has an EAD which is a List A document.

[Ayrton 965]

33 minutes ago, SmallTownPA said:

So many people are missing the point.

 

The EAD is TIME LIMITED.

 

If your I-551 (green card) is denied, you go away.  And since since you are a conditional permit they may not want to risk you leaving if your LPR status is not approved.

 

So no, its not a huge conspiracy.  HR doesn't want to risk hiring you with a TEMPORARY work permit.  Once you get the GC, your future in the US pretty set. 

 

If they are hiring you under an H1B then this is different.  Why does the 'no American can do the job' thing come into play?  That sounds like they are trying to hire under an H visa or you don't understand what they are asking of you.

GC also have expiration date. And the first GC for most K1s is only valid for 2 years. So it makes no sense. HR probably doesn't know what an EAD is and they might think they're gonna have to sponsor op.

[SmallTownPA 72]

Just now, Ayrton said:

GC also have expiration date. And the first GC for most K1s is only valid for 2 years. So it makes no sense. HR probably doesn't know what an EAD is and they might think they're gonna have to sponsor op.

 

Yes but a GC would have more weight as to your future presence.  EAD means you are NOT here as a LPR yet, you are conditional to a conditional.. get it?

 

Also there is a HUGE discrepancy with the part about 'a job they can't find an American to do'.  This smells of H1B.  That's a work visa, not EAD.

 

Unless OP can explain what that 'can't find an American to do' part means I'm gonna say H1B not EAD is required.

[Just Paul 4,595]

I used to hire EAD and visa stamped employes.   It is true the discriminating for not yet having a green card.  EAD and I-551 stamps are valid. 

 

The first lesson I learned in hiring someone that had an EAD was that in almost all cases they were harder workers than most new hires.  Much harder. Call it having something to prove! The second was they were more willing to learn.  Lastly they were very loyal.   I can't recall many leaving to get a job that paid a bit more.

 

OP if the firm won't hire with an EAD then forget them.  They are idiots and don't deserve your time!

[HRQX 4,145]

58 minutes ago, SmallTownPA said:

the part about 'a job they can't find an American to do'. 

That part is odd, it should say 'a job they can't find a United States worker to do': https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/655.738 Definition of United States worker https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/655.715

Quote

an employee who is either

• A citizen or national of the United States, or
• An alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, is admitted as a refugee under section 207 of the INA, is granted asylum under section 208 of the INA, or is an immigrant otherwise authorized (by the INA or by DHS) to be employed in the United States.

OP is a United States worker because she is authorized by DHS to be employed in the US.

10 minutes ago, Paul & Mary said:

The first lesson I learned in hiring someone that had an EAD was that in almost all cases they were harder workers than most new hires.

I agree 100%. I've been working with EADs since 2002.

15 minutes ago, Paul & Mary said:

OP if the firm won't hire with an EAD then forget them.  They are idiots and don't deserve your time!

If I were OP, I'd still give DOJ's Immigrant and Employee Rights section a call: https://www.justice.gov/crt/immigrant-and-employee-rights-section They take §1324b violations seriously.

[geowrian 22,337]

3 hours ago, HRQX said:

EAD is List A. It shows both identity and employment authorization. List C is unrestricted SS card, CRBA, etc. OP doesn't yet have an unrestricted SS card.

DOH! That's what I get for going off memory. Yes, EAD is List A and that works for both identity and work authorization. Nothing from List B + C is needed.

[geowrian 22,337]

2 hours ago, SmallTownPA said:

So many people are missing the point.

 

The EAD is TIME LIMITED.

 

If your I-551 (green card) is denied, you go away.  And since since you are a conditional permit they may not want to risk you leaving if your LPR status is not approved.

 

So no, its not a huge conspiracy.  HR doesn't want to risk hiring you with a TEMPORARY work permit.  Once you get the GC, your future in the US pretty set.

If that is real reason, despite their claims, then it still falls under illegal discrimination. I'm not quite buying into that being the reason as it's just trading one illegal reason for another, and admitting to either would be really stupid on their part. Never attribute to malice that which can reasonably be explained by stupidity.

 

From the prior link:

Quote

Preventing Discrimination in the Form I-9 and E-Verify Processes

Employers must accept any valid document an employee presents as long as the document reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee. Most of these documents can be found on the Lists of Acceptable Documents. Employers cannot, based on an individual’s citizenship, immigration status, or national origin:

...

Refuse to accept a document or refuse to hire an individual because a document will expire in the future;

 

[SmallTownPA 72]

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

If that is real reason, despite their claims, then it still falls under illegal discrimination. I'm not quite buying into that being the reason as it's just trading one illegal reason for another, and admitting to either would be really stupid on their part. Never attribute to malice that which can reasonably be explained by stupidity.

 

From the prior link:

 

I'll hold my breath and await news of the huge ICE raid on the news.

 

OP made this claim:

 

"Their reason is they need to prove to the government that no American can do the job that’s why they are hiring me for it. "

 

This is H1B language.  Not simple I-9

 

OP needs to explain in more detail what the situation is.

 

And even if you call 'the gov't' other than a fine for the employer, what do you hope to accomplish?  Have a court force them company to hire them?  Really?  Do you think that will last long in an at-will State?

 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by SmallTownPA

[HRQX 4,145]

5 minutes ago, SmallTownPA said:

Even if the employer is wrong I don't see a remedy that benefits OP.

 

Does it suck?  Sure.  But if the employer won't recognize the EAD then its time to move on.  Sure, you can fight the good fight.  Enjoy that en-devour.

Different IER cases: https://www.justice.gov/crt/immigrant-and-employee-rights-section-news

A recent case: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-immigration-related-discrimination-claim-against-oregon-school "The INA generally prohibits employers from refusing to hire certain work-authorized non-U.S. citizens because of their citizenship status. It also prohibits employers from pre-screening applicants by requesting specific documentation to prove work authorization based on employees’ citizenship status or national origin." "Under the settlement, the Woodburn School District will pay the rejected applicant $5,774.81; pay the maximum civil penalties applicable ($5,543) to the United States; and be subject to departmental monitoring, training, and reporting requirements for a three-year period."

[geowrian 22,337]

1 hour ago, SmallTownPA said:

I'll hold my breath and await news of the huge ICE raid on the news.

1 hour ago, SmallTownPA said:

And even if you call 'the gov't' other than a fine for the employer, what do you hope to accomplish?  Have a court force them company to hire them?  Really?  Do you think that will last long in an at-will State?

ICE wouldn't be involved here. This is a DOL/DOJ matter. Consequences due to a valid complaint can be punitive, and can include direct fines as well as enhanced enforcement policies.

Civil penalties via suit can include both actual damages and punitive damages, not to compel them to hire somebody.

 

I'm not saying it would happen here or not, or that it is being suggested in any way to get to that point. The obvious approach is to resolve the matter with the employer directly, leading to the next item...

 

1 hour ago, SmallTownPA said:

OP made this claim:

 

"Their reason is they need to prove to the government that no American can do the job that’s why they are hiring me for it. "

 

This is H1B language.  Not simple I-9

 

OP needs to explain in more detail what the situation is.

Exactly - there is a clear misunderstanding here. If it's on the employer side, then educating them usually resolves the matter with both sides being happy with the outcome.

[HRQX 4,145]

4 hours ago, SmallTownPA said:

Have a court force them company to hire them?  Really?  Do you think that will last long in an at-will State?

As geowrian mentioned above, the lawsuit can't compel the employer to hire the job applicant. But if an employer does hire the applicant, the employer can't later change course by doing a retaliatory firing: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324b "Prohibition of intimidation or retaliation"

[Lemonslice 4,840]

8 hours ago, SmallTownPA said:

So many people are missing the point.

 

The EAD is TIME LIMITED.

 

If your I-551 (green card) is denied, you go away.  And since since you are a conditional permit they may not want to risk you leaving if your LPR status is not approved.

 

So no, its not a huge conspiracy.  HR doesn't want to risk hiring you with a TEMPORARY work permit.  Once you get the GC, your future in the US pretty set. 

Still not legal to ask more than if the person is allowed to work in the USA before the job offer, or to request more documents than what is asked on the i-9.

 

EADs can be issued for many reasons, some of them very long term, and that is none of employer's business (no pun).   

 

By your reasoning, green cards are also "time limited" - do you really want your fiancée/spouse to be unable to find work because employers don't want to consider hiring someone who only has a 2-year green card? Or get being unable to find a job because get 10-year card will be expiring in a few months?

 

I-9 employers guide is there to define clearly what's allowed, and not allowed.

 

---

OP, it seems the employer is confusing the information about EAD and visa, or that the employer is a Federal department or agency 

 

For more info:

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/employee-rights-resources/preventing-discrimination/preventing-discrimination

 

 

 

 

[BB&SVW 29]

On 1/20/2020 at 11:19 AM, Stubmeister said:

Ok, let me ask something that hasn't been asked: Does this job require travel outside the US? EAD is good for work in the US but without the GC and AP it doesn't allow for travel in and of itself.

Job doesn't require any travel at all 

12 hours ago, Lemonslice said:

Still not legal to ask more than if the person is allowed to work in the USA before the job offer, or to request more documents than what is asked on the i-9.

 

EADs can be issued for many reasons, some of them very long term, and that is none of employer's business (no pun).   

 

By your reasoning, green cards are also "time limited" - do you really want your fiancée/spouse to be unable to find work because employers don't want to consider hiring someone who only has a 2-year green card? Or get being unable to find a job because get 10-year card will be expiring in a few months?

 

I-9 employers guide is there to define clearly what's allowed, and not allowed.

 

---

OP, it seems the employer is confusing the information about EAD and visa, or that the employer is a Federal department or agency 

 

For more info:

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/employee-rights-resources/preventing-discrimination/preventing-discrimination

 

 

 

 

This is true! I can't believe they would do this! 

[Sarge21555 206]

My previous manager told me not to hire Anyone with work authorization due to issues of renewals.   I did it anyway and got in trouble when the renewal did not occur right away and that employee  needed to be terminated.

 

its bad for management to hire Work Authorization due to stupid 1 year dates. They should make it 3 years.

 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by UAreWhatuBecame

[Lemonslice 4,840]

2 hours ago, UAreWhatuBecame said:

My previous manager told me not to hire Anyone with work authorization due to issues of renewals.   I did it anyway and got in trouble when the renewal did not occur right away and that employee  needed to be terminated.

 

its bad for management to hire Work Authorization due to stupid 1 year dates. They should make it 3 years.

 

 

In many (most?) circumstances, there's no need to terminate the employee.

 

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/42-automatic-extensions-employment-authorization-documents-eads-certain-circumstances