{"id":25267,"date":"2021-12-09T04:37:02","date_gmt":"2021-12-09T09:37:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=25267"},"modified":"2021-12-09T04:37:04","modified_gmt":"2021-12-09T09:37:04","slug":"microsoft-justice-settle-lawsuit-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2021\/12\/09\/microsoft-justice-settle-lawsuit-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Did the Justice Department Punish Microsoft for Prioritizing American Workers?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Microsoft settled with the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding claims that the company discriminated against non-citizens during its hiring practices. The Justice Department claimed<\/a> that Microsoft \u201cdiscriminated against non-U.S. citizens based on their citizenship status during the early stages of Microsoft\u2019s hiring process by asking them for unnecessary, specific immigration documents to prove they could work for the company without needing its sponsorship for work visas.\u201d Reporting from Law360 indicated that Microsoft will pay about $17,400 in civil penalties, in addition to altering its hiring procedure. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a unique settlement. Technology giants like Microsoft are frequent abusers of the H-1B program<\/a> and often come under scrutiny for discriminating against American workers in favor of foreigners. Earlier this year, Facebook<\/a> settled with the DOJ over accusations that it hired H-1B workers over better-qualified Americans. Research shows that H-1B workers earn significantly less<\/a> than Americans in the same role, leading to the abuse of the H-1B program by large corporations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This case is the inverse of the norm. Instead, the DOJ appears to punish Microsoft for making it more difficult for foreign workers to obtain a job at the tech giant. The crux of the DOJ\u2019s case against Microsoft is the company\u2019s requirement that applicants provide copies of their work authorization and other immigration documents. The release<\/a> notes that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) \u201cprohibits employers from asking for documents when not required or from limiting or specifying the types of valid documentation a worker is allowed to show to prove permission to work, because of a worker\u2019s citizenship, immigration status, or national origin.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To a layman, this sounds as if the DOJ punished Microsoft\nbecause the company was too diligent in confirming the legal work status of\nprospective foreign employees. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If that is the case, then this is a disappointing\nrevelation. Too often, corporations rely on the H-1B, Optional Practical\nTraining (OPT), and L-1 guestworker programs to discriminate against American\nworkers. And despite occasional settlements, the DOJ is not as aggressive at\ncracking down on this behavior as it could \u2013 and should – be. Discriminating\nagainst applicants because of their national origin is illegal, but it is not\nclear that Microsoft is guilty of that in this case. Instead, it appears that\nthey are guilty of trying their best to confirm that foreign applicants have\neligible work authorization status. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why is the DOJ discouraging such behavior? Despite\nMicrosoft\u2019s heavy use of H-1B applicants, they did their best here to ensure\nthat applicants had work authorization documents and were otherwise squared\naway with the proper immigration authorities before advancing them through the\nhiring process. We should encourage this behavior \u2013 and crack down on abusers \u2013\nrather than punish companies for trying to do the right thing.  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Microsoft settled with the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding claims that the company discriminated against non-citizens during its hiring practices. The Justice Department claimed that Microsoft \u201cdiscriminated against non-U.S. citizens based on their citizenship status during the early stages of Microsoft\u2019s hiring process by asking them for unnecessary, specific immigration documents to prove they could<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":78,"featured_media":13982,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[6],"tags":[1524,986,831,1254],"yst_prominent_words":[3028,11037,12665,2177,6391,7744,2181,1932,7066,6407,2174,12663,1963,12662,12664,3609,2981,2128,8127,1937],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25267"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/78"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25267"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25267\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25268,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25267\/revisions\/25268"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13982"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25267"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=25267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}