Admiral Rockwell Tory &
Crixus
Okay, back, though I don't have a time to go into full details before I have to make dinner here. The problem is that basically everything the government touches goes to shit lol
One side pushes for illegal immigrant hiring, the other against, and the two are in basically eternal combat over what's allowed and what's not. Alleged discrimination plays a big part in it which is why I specifically talked about discrimination in the INA/IER. Anyway, here are a couple recent cases that go into the "case law" precedence regarding asking for proof of US citizenship upon hire:
March 2018 -
Court Rules Illegal Aliens Can Sue over “Discriminatory Employment Policy” Requiring Green Cards - Judicial Watch
"For the second time in a few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants can sue American employers that refuse to hire them because they require workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents (green card holders). The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in south Florida, who handed a powerful open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a major U.S. company of discriminating against an illegal immigrant. [...] Judge Kathleen M. Williams, a former public defender agrees, citing MALDEF's other lawsuit in her ruling."
The ruling is here -
https://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/Case_117cv22652_MotiontoDismiss.pdf and relevant bits if you'd like to save some time:
Statement of Fact: "Moreno [the hiring person employed by Procter and Gamble - aka PG] told Plaintiff [illegal] that he was not eligible to be hired because "per P&G policy, applicants in the U.S. should be Iegally authorized to work with no restraints on the type, duration, or Iocation of employment."
Judge's Discussion: The only disputed issue,in the instant motion, is whether Plaintiff has stated a claim for alienage discrimination by sufficiently pleading that PG refused to hire him, and others similarly situated because of their non-citizen status. The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim.
[... talking about case law regarding DACA as "protected classes"]
As is the case here, the critical issue in Juarez [ie case law] was whether the plaintiff had properly plead that Nodhwestern Mutal purposefully discriminated against him based on alienage. The court explained that one way to plead intentional discrimination ''is to point to a Iaw or policy that expressly classifies people on the basis of a protected characteristic.'' Id. at 370. Therefore, the could concluded that ''allegations that [plaintiff's] application was rejected pursuant to a policy that expressly denies employment to lawfully present aliens without green cards- a protected subclass- suffice to state a claim under j 1981." The Court finds this reasoning persuasive.
Here, PG's policy, as alleged in the complaint, could be construed to discriminate against a subset of Iegal aliens, which are a protected class under section 1981. And it
is well established that plaintiff need not allege discrimination against the whole class to establish a section 1981 claim. See Connecticut vs. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 454 (1982)
(''under Title VII, a racially balanced workforce cannot immunize an employer from Iiability for specific acts of discrimination.")
Conclusion: "For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim under section 1981 and Defendant's motion to dismiss (DE 17) is DENIED."
---
October 2017 -
Denver Sheriff Department penalized for wrongful hiring practices – The Denver Post &
Department of Justice Fines Sheriff Department for Hiring Only US Citizens
Denver Sheriff Department sued by U.S. Department of Justice because it made U.S. citizenship a job requirement for its deputies during a hiring spree in 2015 and early 2016.
Settlement agreement here (
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/912421/download ) reads: "WHEREAS, the Office of Special Counsel concluded based' upon its investigation that there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent committed citizenship status
discrimination in violation of the Act during the period from approximately January 1, 2015, to March 23, 2016. Specifically, the Office of Special Counsel found that
Respondent limited applicants for deputy sheriff positions to U.S. citizens only, even though Respondent was not authorized by law to have such a citizenship requirement."
[... List of settlement agreements]
5. Respondent shall treat all individuals equally, without regard to citizenship or immigration status, or national origin, during the recruitment, hiring, firing, and employment
eligibility verification and re-verification process, as required by 8 U.S.C. §1324b.
The argument made by special council was:
The law that the Denver Sheriff’s Department supposedly violated is 8 U.S.C. §1324b, which makes it unlawful “to discriminate against any individual [except for illegal immigrants] with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment … because of such individual’s citizenship status.”
In other words, if someone is a noncitizen who is legally in the country and has a work authorization from the Department of Homeland Security, that person cannot be discriminated against in the employment context."
Which, just as in the other cases, makes it 100% automatic discrimination to ask that an applicant for a job if they're a US citizen, nor to require they be a US citizen as I noted originally. It also makes it "discrimination" to ask a current employee their citizenship status, so basically not only can you not ask them, but once you hire them, you're stuck with them regardless of if it comes out that their illegal. Again, this is all because of DACA right, that's why I'd left out the section 3 -- it's /all/ going to have to be amended because DACA is gone - That reality will also kill the most recent cases when/if they're brought to the SCOTUS because you can't claim "DACA" non-citizenship as a "special class" anymore...
However, NONE of this stuff, the legal to work stuff actually applies to small business regardless - those with under 4 or 4-14 employees can actually hire illegals if they want. That's in the IRCA:
"The INA's citizenship status, unfair documentary practices, and retaliation provisions apply to employers with at least four employees. The INA's national origin discrimination provisions apply to employers who have at least four employees and who would not be covered by Title VII (in other words, they have fewer than 15 employees)."
In those cases the courts would still be able to argue that a small business is discriminating against alienage or national origin by requesting/demanding citizenship status because they don't fall under the IRCA's employee numbers guidelines - aka not required to provide /any/ documentation that their employees are legal to work (regardless of if the state requires I-9/eVerify)
So yeah, politicians have made a ******* mess and no one wants to clean up the shit, or at least no one has wanted to clean up the shit thus far. Trump killed DACA (and Congress dropped it entirely) that will help businesses hire folks who are here legally and allowed to work - but it's not going to solve the whole mess until some EO or fed law is passed to undo the Obama era changes that gave so many loop holes to illegals - and gave illegals the power to sue for not hiring them.
