Advertisement

June 19, 2013

DOJ Announces Settlement with Specialty Food Company Over Discriminatory Document Practices

On July 20, 2012, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a settlement agreement with United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI) over allegations that the company violated the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by impermissibly re-verifying the work authorization of legal permanent residents and requiring certain non-citizen workers to present specific documentation during the Form I-9 completion process.

The case arose when a lawful permanent resident employee alleged that UNFI improperly terminated his employment after he failed to produce an unexpired Permanent Resident Card (“green card”) in connection with the company’s erroneous re-verification of his employment eligibility. The DOJ investigation revealed that the company improperly re-verified the work eligibility of other legal permanent residents when their work authorization documents expired but did not do so for U.S. citizens. The anti-discrimination provision of the INA, which is enforced by the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel (OSC), prohibits the unequal treatment of employees during the employment eligibility verification and re-verification processes on account of citizenship or national origin.

In response to the investigation, UNFI conducted an internal audit and took corrective action to correct its employment eligibility verification and re-verification practices. In addition, the company rehired the employee who brought the claim and granted him full back pay prior to the government’s determination that discrimination had been committed. Under the terms of the settlement, UNFI has also agreed to pay $3,190 in civil penalties, conform its policies to ensure compliance with the INA’s anti-discrimination provision, and train human resources personnel about avoiding discrimination in the employment eligibility verification process.

The guidelines for penalties levied due to violations of the INA’s anti-discrimination provision are discussed in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(B), which provides, in relevant part, that individuals or entities who are found to have violated the statute must pay a civil penalty of not less than $250 and not more than $2,000 for each individual discriminated against; for individuals or entities with one previous offense, of not less than $2,000 and not more than $5,000 for each individual discriminated against; for individuals or entities with more than one previous offense, not less than $3,000 and not more than $10,000 for each individual discriminated against; and for one individuals or entities who are found to have engaged in discriminatory documentary practices subject to (a)(6) of this section, not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for each individual discriminated against.

In addition, the rubric for penalties assessed in connection with Form I-9 audits conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may be found at: http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/i9-inspection.htm.

©2013 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Nataliya Binshteyn focuses her practice on global business immigration matters. Her experience includes representing political asylum applicants in immigration proceedings before Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges. Nataliya has experience conducting client interviews, researching country conditions and applicable laws, and soliciting expert testimony as well as drafting affidavits and immigration documents for filing with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

703-903-7583

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.