DOJ Accuses U.S. Biz of Discrimination for Requiring Proof of Work Eligibility

I found the DOJ statement to be quite vague. I agree that the I9 should be the standard for determining the right to work. Personally, I'd like to see the full case file.

LTC (Join to see) - Yeah, me too. I wouldn't be surprised though if as part of the deal, the DOJ agreed to seal the records.

SGT Jeremiah B., that would tell us something about this administration's honesty too, don't you agree?

Capt Seid Waddell - No, this is a long-standing practice. Research corporate settlements in criminal cases. Both sides bend over backwards to avoid court and often the terms are locked away in secrecy. It's the same in a lot of personal civil cases where, as part of the agreement, the plaintiff agrees to shut up about whatever the dispute was about.

Hell, did you know that a lot of times corporate settlements/fines are tax deductible?!

The "discrimination" is that they only checked the brown people ...

CW4 Guy Butler, Lawless because they did NOT follow the law. The law requires employers to use E-Verify to ensure that their employees are legal.

"The case involves a Nebraska meat packing company that demanded workers to furnish proof of immigration status for the federal employment eligibility verification process.

Last year a federal audit disclosed that the Obama administration was letting businesses that hire undocumented workers off the hook by drastically reducing fines and enforcement.

During a three-year period the administration slashed by 40% the amount of fines collected from employers caught with illegal immigrants on their payroll, according to the probe which was conducted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General.

This inconsistent implementation hinders the government’s mission to prevent or deter employers from violating immigration laws, the DHS watchdog wrote in its report.

Now the DOJ is taking it a step further by going after employers that try to ensure their workers are in the U.S. legally."

I read the report (shocking, I know). An excerpt on fines:


"For example, the Miami field office created an internal practice to determine whether to issue a warning, which may have resulted in it issuing more warnings than fines. From FY 2009 through August 2012, the field office conducted 194 administrative inspections. Seven percent of the inspections resulted in fines; 41 percent resulted in warnings. Miami personnel said that when deciding whether to issue a warning or a fine, they considered the viability of the business and the character of the owners. If the potential fine was substantial and threatened the employer’s ability to remain in business, they would consider issuing a warning rather than a fine.

The Los Angeles field office also established an internal procedure to determine whether to issue a warning or fine. From FY 2009 through August 2012, this field office conducted 147 administrative inspections. About 7 percent resulted in fines, and about 55 percent resulted in warnings. In some cases, personnel issued a warning when the potential fine amount was less than $10,000, unless they identified egregious violations or repeat offenses during a re-inspection. Specifically, 2 of the 29 administrative inspections files we reviewed showed that HSI personnel issued warning notices to employers because the potential fine would have been less than $10,000. ICE guidance does not include a dollar threshold for issuing a warning rather than a fine. Furthermore, at other field offices, we found instances of employers receiving fines rather than warnings for potential fines of $10,000 or less.

According to the ICE guide, “Generally, when more than 50% of the Forms I-9 inspected exhibit substantive errors without regard to whether or not those errors resulted in the hire of unauthorized aliens, the case agent or auditor should seek a NIF.” However, at the Los Angeles field office, we identified a case that resulted in a warning being issued even though the I-9 form error rate was 80 percent."

CW4 Guy Butler, ??? and your point is???