Gov’t Accuses Company Of Discrimination Over Employees Having To Prove Citizenship Status

Nebraska Beef / AP
  
BY: Joe Schoffstall  
September 3, 2015

The Department of Justice has accused a business of discrimination due to the company requiring employees to show proof of citizenship for employment.

The DOJ claims that Nebraska Beef Ltd., a Nebraska-based meat packing company, “required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility.”

After receiving pressure from the government, Nebraska Beef agreed to pay $200,000 in a civil penalty settlement and said they will establish an uncapped back pay fund for people who lost wages because they could not prove they are in the country legally.

The settlement also requires the business to undergo compliance monitoring for two years, train employees on the anti-discrimination provision within the Immigration and Nationality Act, and to revise policies within its office.

Judicial Watch reports:

The DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices objected to non-U.S. citizens being “targeted” because of their citizenship status. “The department’s investigation found that the company required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility,” the DOJ claims. This could constitute a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the feds assert, because its anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from making documentary demands based on citizenship or national origin when verifying an employee’s authorization to work.

With the feds breathing down its neck the business, Nebraska Beef Ltd, agreed to pay Uncle Sam a $200,000 civil penalty and establish an uncapped back pay fund to compensate individuals who lost wages because they couldn’t prove they are in the county legally. Additionally, the business will undergo “compliance monitoring,” which means big brother will be watching very closely. The head of the DOJ’s civil rights division explains that the agency is on a mission to eliminate “unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment” so workers can support their families and contribute to the U.S. economy.

The DOJ issued a statement after the settlement saying they committed to protecting individuals against unnecessary discrimination in barriers to employment.

“The department is committed to ensuring that individuals who are authorized to work in the United States can support their families and contribute to our country’s economic growth without facing unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division. “We will vigorously enforce the law to remove such barriers where we find them, and ensure that affected individuals have a means of seeking relief.”

http://freebeacon.com/issues/govt-accuses-company-of-discrimination-over-employees-having-to-prove-citizenship-status/

When the gubbahmint foisted their will upon business, the gubbahmint called it the I-9.

Busted for obeying gubbahmint regulation?

the facts are new and ambiguous here

did they single out EMPLOYEES (those already working), or are they talking about asking APPLICANTS to prove citizenship?

these would be different scenarios


in the latter, the applicant signing they are a citizen would require further information for future verification(social security number, card,,etc,,)

in the former, if they were already employed, singling them out as opposed to doing an employee wide verification,, would be a case for discrimination,,,

DiscrimiWhat?
Obeying the Law?

its discrimination if you dont verify EVERYONES status,, who is employed


verification after employment should be employment wide

verification of applicants is included in the application requirements,,,

Well the company had to pay back wages. The company is also being monitored to make sure they comply so sounds like discrimination was the problem.


But yes I agree the company before hiring the employees should have asked for verification .

i don't understand the stupid liberals on this.... ALL jobs ask you to prove your legal to work in the US...

except when they participate in 'under the table' dealings

and I believe the point is if they are already EMPLOYEES they should already have been verified and not singled out for a second verification process,,,

why not? it's against the law to hire non-legal status employees...

me very khappy to be in AAMERIKAA....but dont aks for green kard

exactly, to HIRE,, once they are hired, you are already screwed if you havent verified, so there is no basis upon which to verify at that point,,,unless you are doing a company wide verification of application claims for ALL EMPLOYEES

the liberals are just nit-picking, again...

Except for the under the table ones I agree.something else is probably going on. Business is usually about cutting corners and they got busted.

The company was not obeying the law that is the problem



Why are there so many typos in this article?


With the feds breathing down its neck the business, Nebraska Beef Ltd, agreed to pay Uncle Sam a $200,000 civil penalty and establish an uncapped back pay fund to compensate individuals who lost wages because they couldn’t prove they are in the county legally. Additionally, the business will undergo “compliance monitoring,” which means big brother will be watching very closely. The head of the DOJ’s civil rights division explains that the agency is on a mission to eliminate “unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment” so workers can support their families and contribute to the U.S. economy.

The DOJ issued a� statement� after the settlement saying they committed to protecting individuals against unnecessary discrimination in barriers to employment.

“The department is committed to ensuring that individuals who are authorized to work in the United States can support their families and contribute to our country’s economic growth without facing unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division. “We will vigorously enforce the law to remove such barriers where we find them, and ensure that affected individuals have a means of seeking relief.”

So they're both U.S. citizens?
One being, what, naturally born and the other being naturalized?

Is the problem the company only knew they had green cards and didn't know that they became citizens?
So they're asking the naturalized people to prove they became citizens and didn't just let their visas or green cards expire?

Or did the company know they were all legal citizens and just rechecked the naturalized ones to make sure, because they were being petty or whatever?

That's not all that clear from the article.

And the article keeps repeating "non-U.S. citizens."
Based on the crappy journalism of today it's not all that clear if that means "citizens of some other country outside the u.s., immigrant labor, but we want to avoid using the term immigrant where we can so we can avoid the connotations," or, "a U.S. citizen, with all the rights and responsibilities associated, that was naturalized rather than born in the U.S., they are from somewhere other than the U.S., so they're non-U.S. but a U.S. citizen."


If they're immigrants, that could make the problem just the company checking people they know aren't u.s. citizens to make sure the papers they have granting them the ability to work in the u.s. haven't expired.
They may be eligible to work at the date of hire, but their papers could expire.

That makes what the government is doing stupid.

The statement from the DoJ seems to support this as the problem:
"The department is committed to ensuring that individuals who are authorized to work in the United States..."

That implies the people aren't U.S. citizens, but people that only have visas, or green cards, documents authorizing work in the U.S...which expire. And if the company continues to employ them in the U.S. when they are no longer legal, that could create fines.

It would be in the interest of the company to check the status of "non-U.S. citizens" authorized to work here and not U.S. citizens being employed by them.




...IMO this is a better example of crappy journalism than anything else.

There is to many pieces missing something does not make sense. How did the company get in this mess. How did it get to the point that they are now being watched.

thats what I was saying,,,lol