Skip to main content

Justice Department Files a Lawsuit Alleging Employment Discrimination by Georgia Rug Manufacturer and Seller

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today filed a lawsuit against Garland Sales Inc., a rug manufacturer and seller located in Dalton, Ga., alleging it engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by imposing unnecessary and discriminatory hurdles to employment for work authorized individuals.

According to the department’s findings, Garland required all non-U.S. citizen applicants to present certain work authorization documents. The Immigration and National Act (INA) requires that employers not impose different or greater employment eligibility verification (I-9) standards on non-citizen authorized workers as compared to U.S. citizens. Garland imposed different and greater requirements on non-U.S. citizens as compared to applicants who were U.S. citizens.

Moreover, the department found that Garland retaliated against a limited English proficient naturalized U.S. citizen, when it rescinded a job offer. Specifically, Garland requested the individual produce a "Green Card" (Form I-551 Resident Alien Card), which the applicant did not have because he is a U.S. Citizen. When the applicant did not produce this document and voiced concern about being asked to produce it, Garland withdrew his offer of employment.

"The INA’s anti-discrimination provision makes it illegal to impose different rules for establishing work authorization based on actual or perceived citizenship status," said Thomas E. Perez, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division. "Our Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) is acting now to remedy this illegal pattern or practice of discrimination."

The lawsuit charging Garland was filed in the department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review – Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO).

The Civil Rights Division’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the INA, which protect U.S. citizens and certain work-authorized individuals from citizenship status discrimination. The INA also protects all work-authorized individuals from national origin discrimination, over-documentation in the employment eligibility verification process, and retaliation.

Earlier this month, OSC entered into an out-of-court settlement with Macy’s department stores to settle allegations that a store in Orlando, Fla., committed document abuse and discriminated against a legal permanent resident by requesting more work authorization documents than are required to establish eligibility under the Form I-9. As part of the settlement, Macy’s has agreed to train its human resources employees in its Orlando area stores about federal protections for workers against citizenship status and national origin discrimination, and properly conducting the employment verification process.

For more information about protections against employment discrimination under the immigration laws, call 1-800-255-7688 (OSC’s worker hotline) (1-800-237-2525, TDD for hearing impaired), 1-800-255-8255 (OSC’s employer hotline) (1-800-362-2735, TDD for hearing impaired), or 202-616-5594. Email osccrt@usdoj.gov, or visit the website at www.justice.gov/crt/osc.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...