Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Arapahoe, Colo., Sheriff’s Office to Resolve Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices

The Justice Department announced that it has reached an agreement with the Arapahoe County, Colo. Office of the Sheriff resolving allegations that the Office of the Sheriff violated the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 

The investigation was initiated based on information obtained in the course of a lawsuit filed by a former employee against the Sheriff’s Office alleging discriminatory termination. The Department’s investigation established that the Office of the Sheriff improperly restricted law enforcement positions to U.S. citizens notwithstanding the fact that no law, regulation, executive order or government contract authorized it to restrict employment in this manner. The former employee who filed the lawsuit was in fact a U.S. citizen and had documentation that showed her work authorization but not her citizenship. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits certain discriminatory hiring practices against work-authorized individuals and permits employers to limit jobs to U.S. citizens only where the employer is required to do so by law, regulation, executive order, or government contract.

Under the settlement agreement, the Office of the Sheriff’s employment eligibility verification practices will be subject to monitoring by the Justice Department and reporting requirements for a period of three years. The Sheriff’s Office also agreed to pay $500 in civil penalties to the United States. The Office of the Sheriff had already addressed the identified victim’s back pay claims through an earlier agreement based on her private lawsuit. In addition, the Office of the Sheriff informed other affected non-U.S. citizen applicants that they could re-apply for available law enforcement positions. The Sheriff’s Office denied that it committed any violation of the anti-discrimination provision but fully cooperated with the investigation and agreed to revise its hiring policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the INA’s anti-discrimination provision.

“Employers must ensure that their hiring practices do not violate the anti-discrimination provision of the INA,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “Any restrictions in hiring based on citizenship status must be pursuant to requirements established by law or government contract, not internal policies. The Office of the Sheriff’s cooperation and its efforts to reach out to non-citizens affected by its past policies reflect its commitment to address the issues raised in this investigation in a meaningful manner.”

Source: DOJ
This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

 

Justice Department Settles Immigration-related Discrimination Claim Against Alabama Employment Agency

The Justice Department today reached an agreement with Stellar Staffing LLC, based in Birmingham, Ala., resolving claims that the employment agency violated the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The department’s independent investigation was initiated based on evidence uncovered during the investigation of a related retaliation charge filed against Stellar Staffing. The department’s investigation concluded that since at least July 2008, the company required specific documents issued by the Department of Homeland Security from non-U.S. citizens during the employment eligibility verification process, but accepted a variety of identity and work authorization documentation from U.S. citizens.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Stellar Staffing will pay $2,250 in civil penalties to the United States, undergo Justice Department training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA and be subject to monitoring of its employment eligibility verification practices for a period of one year. 

“The anti-discrimination provision protects work-authorized individuals from being treated differently in the hiring process based on discriminatory assumptions about their status,” said Gregory Friel, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Civil Rights Division is fully committed to vigorously enforcing the law.”

 

Source: DOJ

 

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

 

Panel of Experts Tells EEOC of Need to Clarify Interplay Between Programs, Anti-Discrimination Laws

Wellness programs are an increasingly common feature of employee benefits programs, and guidance is needed to avoid violations of federal equal employment opportunity laws, a panel of experts representing business, advocacy groups and providers told the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) at a meeting held today.
 
"We appreciate the valuable insights and diverse perspectives provided by today's panelists," said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. "There has been broad, bipartisan support for the expanded use of wellness programs to reduce health insurance and healthcare costs, but today's meeting underscored the importance of insuring that those programs are designed and implemented in a manner that is consistent with federal equal employment opportunity laws."
Commissioner Victoria A. Lipnic added, "As wellness programs become more prevalent, fostered in part by the signature health care initiative of the Administration, we can be certain that their use will present more questions with respect to the federal laws we enforce. I believe we have a responsibility where possible to let stakeholders know the Commission's position on these important questions."

A majority of employers now offer some sort of wellness program: 94 percent of employers with over 200 workers, and 63 percent of smaller ones, according to Karen Pollitz of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which researches issues relating to health care. She added that many of these programs offer some sort of financial incentive for participation, which can range from gift cards to higher employer contributions for insurance premiums, or penalties like additional surcharges to employees for health insurance.

The most common intersection of these programs and the statutes EEOC enforces occurs when the programs require medical exams or ask disability-related questions, both of which would ordinarily give rise to a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), EEOC Acting Associate Legal Counsel Christopher Kuczynski told the Commission. He explained that, while the ADA allows employers to ask for medical information in connection with voluntary wellness programs, the meaning of "voluntary" merits further clarification by the Commission.

Some panelists also argued that EEOC's regulations under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)-which prohibits acquiring genetic information including family medical history--should provide guidance on whether spouses of employees may be asked for health information in the context of wellness programs.

Speaking on behalf of the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), Jennifer Mathis warned against the use of penalties or monetary incentives for participation in wellness programs. Citing the high rate of unemployment for people with disabilities, Mathis told the Commission that the CCD "is concerned that employer-based health programs which penalize people with disabilities for not being as 'well' as others-and for failing to disclose disability-related information the ADA permits them to keep confidential-make it even more difficult for individuals with disabilities to obtain employment on fair and equal terms."

Other panelists, including Leslie Silverman, a former EEOC Commissioner now a lawyer representing large employers, urged the Commission to provide guidance on the application of the ADA and GINA to wellness programs in order to facilitate employer compliance and clarify the relationship between the ADA, GINA, the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions on incentives and penalties.

While most of the panelists discussed wellness programs in the context of ADA or GINA violations, Judith Lichtman of the National Partnership for Women & Families, warned of potential violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act's prohibitions on race, sex, and national origin discrimination, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's (ADEA) prohibitions on discrimination against people 40 and older.

Lichtman noted that women tend to have more health problems than men and older people tend to have more problems than the young. Many health conditions, such as obesity, diabetes and hypertension, disproportionately affect members of racial minorities. Punitive measures for failing to meet certain biometric markers therefore could have an unjustified disparate impact on certain groups, in violation of both Title VII and the ADEA, she told the Commission.

The Commission will hold open the Wellness Commission meeting record for 15 days, and invites members of the public, to submit written comments on any issues or matters discussed at the meeting. Public comments may be mailed to Commission Meeting, EEOC Executive Officer, 131 M Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20507, or emailed to: Commissionmeetingcomments@eeoc.gov.

Comments submitted by the public will be made available to members of the Commission and to Commission staff working on the matters discussed at the meeting. In addition, those comments may be publicly disclosed on the EEOC's public website, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, or in the Commission's library. Persons submitting comments in response to this solicitation are consenting to their use and consideration by the Commission and to their public dissemination. Accordingly, they should not include any information that persons would not want made public, such as home address, telephone number, etc. Note that when comments are submitted by e-mail, the sender's e-mail address automatically appears on the message.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. More information about the EEOC, including panelists' statements, biographies and a transcript of this meeting, can be found at www.eeoc.gov.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.