The Department of Justice, through its Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), formerly known as the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, has settled an anti-discrimination claim with Omnicare, Inc., a CVS Health Corporation subsidiary which provides long-term care pharmacy services in Ohio. IER had been investigating whether Omnicare violated the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA’s) anti-discrimination provision against citizenship status discrimination.
An asylee job applicant complained that the company refused to consider him for an interview and removed from consideration for a job due to the fact that he was an asylee and not a lawful permanent resident or US. Citizen. The complaint and the subsequent IER investigation revealed that Omnicare engaged in citizenship status discrimination against a work-authorized job applicant.
The settlement agreement requires Omnicare to pay the maximum civil penalty for a single instance of citizenship status discrimination violation; post notices informing workers about their rights under the INA’s anti-discrimination provision; have its staff and contractors undergo DOJ-provided training on the INA’s anti-discrimination provision; evaluate all employment applicants in a non-discriminatory manner; and be subject to DOJ monitoring and reporting requirement for two years.
Following the raid of nearly 100 7-Eleven stores nationwide in January 2018, last week the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided 77 businesses in Northern California. ICE agents visited these businesses in the Bay Area and the Sacramento region over a span of three days and served each business with a Notice of Inspection which provided three working days to comply. ICE raids typically require employers to produce I-9 forms, as well as payroll records and documentation regarding hiring procedures. In addition, agents may ask for an employee’s proof of identity and work authorization. No immediate arrests were made.
According to an ICE spokesman, the raids reflect “stepped up” efforts to enforce laws that prohibit employers from hiring undocumented workers. The agency’s acting director, Thomas Homan, has been vocal in criticizing California for state and local efforts to protect undocumented workers. Recent state legislation signed by California’s Governor Jerry Brown requires employers to notify workers of an audit and provide them with the results. The law also requires employers to ask ICE agents to obtain a judicial warrant before granting agents access to their worksite.
On January 29, 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published a final rule implementing the annual adjustment of civil monetary penalties for inflation. Included were immigration-related penalties, such as penalties against employers for unlawful employment of immigrants and for immigration-related documentation violations and unfair employment practices. For any DOJ penalties assessed after February 3, 2017, the new penalties are:
Description of Violation
DOJ penalty assessed after 8/1/16
DOJ penalty assessed
Unlawful employment of aliens, first order (per unauthorized alien)
Unlawful employment of aliens, second order (per such alien)
Unlawful employment of aliens, subsequent order (per such alien)
Paperwork violation (per relevant individual)
Violation relating to participating employer’s failure to notify of final non-confirmation of employee’s employment eligibility (per relevant individual)
Violation/probation of indemnity bonds (per violation)
Unfair immigration-related employment practices, first order (per individual discriminate against)
Unfair immigration-related employment practices, second order (per individual discriminated against)
Unfair immigration-related employment practices, subsequent order (per individual discriminated against)
Unfair immigration-related employment practices, unfair documentary practices (per individual discriminated against)
Document fraud, first order-for violations described in USC 1324c(a)(1)-(4) (per document)
Document fraud, first order-for violations described in USC 1324c(a)(1)-(4) (per document
Document fraud, first order-for violations described in USC 1324c(a)(5)-(6) (per document
©2021 Masuda, Funai, Eifert & Mitchell, Ltd. All rights reserved. This publication should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended solely for informational purposes and you should not act or rely upon information contained herein without consulting a lawyer for advice. This publication may constitute Advertising Material.