May 23, 2012

DOL Provides Further Guidance on Suspension and Anticipated Resumption of Its Processing of Prevailing Wage Requests for PERMs

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced that it will suspend its processing of prevailing wage requests for permanent labor certifications (PERMs) in order to comply with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's June 15 order implementing the court's August 30, 2010 decision in CATA v. Solis. DOL has advised that processing will resume no earlier than August 31, 2011 and could be suspended until September 30, 2011. This decision impacts all foreign nationals seeking permanent residence through the PERM process, from lower-skilled workers through highly skilled engineers and researchers in positions requiring advanced degrees.

As many employers seek a prevailing wage determination from DOL at the beginning of the PERM process, prior to initiating the required recruitment steps for a PERM, DOL's action may effectively halt the initiation of new permanent residence processing for foreign nationals seeking green card sponsorship or force employers to change recruitment practices in well-established PERM labor certification programs. In addition, the timing of the filing of a PERM is crucial to the ability of certain foreign nationals in H-1B status to remain in the United States. Thus, the additional delay in the processing of prevailing wage requests may well necessitate strategic contingency planning for employers with H-1B workers who are in or approaching the final year of H-1B status, and for whom the employer has not yet initiated the PERM process. The delay may also impact foreign nationals in other nonimmigrant categories who are reaching the end of their maximum permissible stay in the United States.

Background

A PERM is a DOL-mandated test of the U.S. labor market that is frequently required before an employer may offer a position to a foreign worker on a permanent basis. As a part of the PERM process, an employer is required to request a DOL-issued prevailing wage determination for an occupation in which the employer proposes to employ a foreign worker on a permanent basis. DOL issues prevailing wage determinations to ensure that the wages of U.S. workers are not potentially depressed by lower-paid foreign workers. Employers are required to test the labor market by documenting its efforts to hire U.S. workers using specific means of recruitment established by DOL. The employer is required to offer qualified U.S. workers identified through recruitment the higher of the prevailing wage, or the actual wage that the employer pays to workers in similar positions in the area of intended employment.

The court's decision in CATA and its subsequent order stems from DOL's failure to use the proper methodology in calculating prevailing wages for seasonal/temporary nonagricultural workers in the H-2B visa category. The court ruled on June 15, 2011 that DOL's proposal to implement the new prevailing wage system for work only performed on or after January 1, 2012 was invalid because the delay was not a "logical outgrowth" of its proposed rule, thereby violating the Administrative Procedures Act, and that DOL violated the Immigration and Nationality Act in considering hardship to employers in establishing the effective date. By not applying the new, court-ordered prevailing wage methodology to work performed before January 1, 2012, H-2B workers would continue to be underpaid, as the court initially found in its August 30, 2010 decision.

DOL has advised that these 4,000 prevailing wage requests must be processed manually, with many of the requests including multiple worksites, each of which requires a separate prevailing wage determination.

How This Affects You

Employers with foreign national employees who are reaching the end of their authorized period of stay in H-1B or L status, and for whom the employer has not yet started the PERM labor certification process, may need to explore other options, such as temporary assignment abroad or other nonimmigrant categories for which an employee may be eligible. 

Copyright © 2012 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Partner

Eleanor Pelta is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Labor and Employment Practice. With her practice focused on immigration and nationality law, Ms. Pelta assists corporate clients in various industries with the international transfer of key personnel. She is particularly knowledgeable about managing high-volume employee transfers, as her background includes assisting employers in gaining temporary and permanent visas for all types of business, scientific and executive personnel. Additionally, she advises clients on strategic issues involving movement of staff...

202-739-5050

About the Author

Partner

Eric S. Bord is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Labor and Employment Practice. Mr. Bord's practice focuses on immigration matters involving the recruitment, hiring, transfer, and retention of international personnel worldwide. In addition, he has particular knowledge in the areas of immigration-related compliance, I-9 and E-Verify rules, immigration investigations, and immigration due diligence for corporate transactions.

202-739-6040

Contributors

Partner

A. James Vázquez-Azpiri is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Labor and Employment Practice. Mr. Vázquez-Azpiri focuses his practice on business immigration law, assisting corporate clients with hiring and retaining foreign employees with regard to labor certifications, specialty occupation petitions and intra-company transfers. Mr. Vázquez-Azpiri is also a leading expert on immigration law compliance in the context of mergers, acquisitions and corporate restructuring. Mr. Vázquez-Azpiri helps clients think and work proactively by providing them...

415-442-1343

About the Author

Partner

Lance Director Nagel is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Labor and Employment Practice. Mr. Nagel is a recognized leader in the immigration field who understands the wisdom of applying corporate policies and procedures to the immigration process, and in developing global mobility policies and strategies.

415-442-1345

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.