Feds Punish Business For Engaging In ‘Citizenship-Discrimination’

[ZombieApocolypse]

Ar you sick yet?



Feds Punish Business For Engaging In ?Citizenship-Discrimination?

 

[planedriver]

idiots............... see below

 

[IndyDave1776]

Straight from the 'Dumber than Owl Sh*t' file! The .gov is punishing employers for complying with the law requiring them to establish that employees can legally be employed which generally requires VALID documents, which, by definition, cannot be expired.

 

[5.56'aholic]

Straight from the 'Dumber than Owl Sh*t' file! The .gov is punishing employers for complying with the law requiring them to establish that employees can legally be employed which generally requires VALID documents, which, by definition, cannot be expired.

at least I am not the only one shaking my head in disbelief. I wonder if I can keep driving when my license expires when I show an officer my expired license…….

 

[TaunTaun]

Hmmmm....

So they created a law, and have it on the books...

If you break the law, you have committed a crime...
If you follow the law, you have committed a crime...

We have created a legal system that easily makes criminals out of everyone. Those that quietly go along with the powers-that-be are forgiven, and charges dropped. Those that stand up against the powers-that-be are railroaded.

And people say that Ayn Rand, and Atlas Shrugged is all crazy talk and couldn't ever happen...

 

[drillsgt]

I think they were punished for over complying with the law

 

[mrjarrell]

Looks to me like they were asking for more "proof" than the law allowed for. Perhaps from an overabundance of caution, but perhaps also from a perspective of discrimination. Tough call, I guess.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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.

This doesn't seem logical to me. But it's the government, so....

 

[Llamaguy]

If the right it work is "permanent" why does the card bother expiring? Seems like to a reasonable person an expired document becomes invalid, like licenses, passports, etc; but birth certificates and SS cards don't have an expiration date. Otherwise, how would you know if their status was revoked for some reason (felony and such). That company needs to hire a better lawyer.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

As a student of HR this doesn't surprise me. Too many employers are woefully ignorant of the laws and fail to follow them out of ignorance.

What this story is NOT showing is: when was the employer notified that their actions might be illegal? Were they ever given a warning that they are acting in a discriminatory manner under the law? Did they fail to consider any such warnings they might have received?

It would appear on its face that the employer initially complied with the law then went above and beyond in a way that was illegal. I agree with GodFearinGunToten that it isn't necessarily logical, but since the right to work is permanent, once verified you can't keep asking for it again without acting in a discriminatory manner.

On a side note the same employer in Indiana would be facing the same potential fines. Right to Work would not have mattered one iota. Federal laws do NOT go away just because the State doesn't have strong labor laws.

Back on topic this is where ignorance of the law can get someone into trouble. That said, from my very limited understanding most small companies are not slammed like this unless they have had a "discussion" with someone beforehand and just decided to blow them off. I would be very interested in the backstory to this case.

Regards,

Doug

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

To All,

As a student of HR this doesn't surprise me. Too many employers are woefully ignorant of the laws and fail to follow them out of ignorance.

What this story is NOT showing is: when was the employer notified that their actions might be illegal? Were they ever given a warning that they are acting in a discriminatory manner under the law? Did they fail to consider any such warnings they might have received?

It would appear on its face that the employer initially complied with the law then went above and beyond in a way that was illegal. I agree with GodFearinGunToten that it isn't necessarily logical, but since the right to work is permanent, once verified you can't keep asking for it again without acting in a discriminatory manner.

On a side note the same employer in Indiana would be facing the same potential fines. Right to Work would not have mattered one iota. Federal laws do NOT go away just because the State doesn't have strong labor laws.

Back on topic this is where ignorance of the law can get someone into trouble. That said, from my very limited understanding most small companies are not slammed like this unless they have had a "discussion" with someone beforehand and just decided to blow them off. I would be very interested in the backstory to this case.

Regards,

Doug

Many good points that i never came close to considering. Beings they arent choosing to fight this (as far as i know) you may be on to something.

 

[Vigilant]

Why not just not hire someone with questionable docs? Just don't start bumping your gums about why you did not extend an offer of employment!

 

[Henry]

Who benefits from this?

Privately owned business or state?

 

[AA&E]

Straight from the 'Dumber than Owl Sh*t' file! The .gov is punishing employers for complying with the law requiring them to establish that employees can legally be employed which generally requires VALID documents, which, by definition, cannot be expired.

I saw a woman in front of me at Chicago Ohare trying to get through TSA security about a week ago with an expired drivers license. They wouldn't let her through. I'd assume your presumption of validity being removed from expired documents is correct.

 

[TaunTaun]

I saw a woman in front of me at Chicago Ohare trying to get through TSA security about a week ago with an expired drivers license. They wouldn't let her through. I'd assume your presumption of validity being removed from expired documents is correct.

She should've asked for asylum and stated that she was an illegal. Then she could have gotten through TSA with no forms of ID, and no background check.

 

[OakRiver]

If the right it work is "permanent" why does the card bother expiring? Seems like to a reasonable person an expired document becomes invalid, like licenses, passports, etc; but birth certificates and SS cards don't have an expiration date. Otherwise, how would you know if their status was revoked for some reason (felony and such). That company needs to hire a better lawyer.

If the right to work is permanent why do people entering the US under a K1 visa have to file for permission to work (I-765)?

 

[AA&E]

She should've asked for asylum and stated that she was an illegal. Then she could have gotten through TSA with no forms of ID, and no background check.

And she would have immediately qualified for every social services program known to man!

 

[ModernGunner]

Well, there's appears to be a good portion of the story missing.

The story seems to infer Culinaire was requiring valid documentation at the time of hire (of which is almost always made a 'xerox' copy, and/or the dates are noted on the document sheet) then, when the original documents expired, Culinaire was demanding a copy of the renewed document (presuming it was renewed).

That would be a as employees aren't required to go back to HR (or wherever) and present renewed documents every time their old ones (DL, passport, whatever) expire. The documentation presented at initial hiring is solely for the purpose of showing that the person is legal and employable at the time of hire. Not a year or 4 or 10 years later.

However, Culinaire COULD have justified and held that practice IF Culinaire required all employees to provide renewed documentation as a 'condition of continued employment'.

Since Culinaire apparently only required renewed documentation for non-resident employees, the practice would indeed, be discriminatory.

Fire the head of HR for that one. The HR Dept. should have certainly known better, without doubt.

 

[Libertarian01]

Well, there's appears to be a good portion of the story missing.

The story seems to infer Culinaire was requiring valid documentation at the time of hire (of which is almost always made a 'xerox' copy, and/or the dates are noted on the document sheet) then, when the original documents expired, Culinaire was demanding a copy of the renewed document (presuming it was renewed).

That would be a as employees aren't required to go back to HR (or wherever) and present renewed documents every time their old ones (DL, passport, whatever) expire. The documentation presented at initial hiring is solely for the purpose of showing that the person is legal and employable at the time of hire. Not a year or 4 or 10 years later.

However, Culinaire COULD have justified and held that practice IF Culinaire required all employees to provide renewed documentation as a 'condition of continued employment'.

Since Culinaire apparently only required renewed documentation for non-resident employees, the practice would indeed, be discriminatory.

Fire the head of HR for that one. The HR Dept. should have certainly known better, without doubt.

To ModernGunner (et alia),

Even IF they required it of everyone they could still face a discrimination claim based upon "disparate impact."

Disparate impact occurs when "a facially neutral employment practice disproportionately excludes a protected group from employment opportunities." (Human Resources Management, Noe, Hollenbeck 2010)

An employer has to be careful about whether or not the qualifications put into place for hiring, firing, and promoting are truly relevant to the performance of the job itself. Disparate impact was decided by the Supreme Court based upon Title VII and later codified into the Civil Rights Act of 1991. For the SCOTUS case see Griggs v. Duke Power 1970. In this case Duke Power required that everyone applying for higher paying jobs must have a high school diploma and score on an IQ test. On its face this seems neutral. However, as blacks were less likely to have a high school diploma AND Duke wasn't able to absolutely prove the need for such to complete some of the higher paying jobs, the Supreme Court ruled that such requirements are Unconstitutional.

Disparate impact and disparate treatment can be very tricky minefields to avoid if an employer is not paying close attention to what is going on. In most cases companies get away with flagrant violations for years before anyone (if ever) challenges them. This is where ignorance can get a company into deep doodoo. This is also why I question the lack of a backstory here. Most of the time (not always) the company in question is warned by some authority to change its practices and given time to do so. I am still left wondering what we don't know about this case.

Regards,

Doug