The Justice Department has reached a settlement with Maxim Healthcare Services, a Maryland-based home healthcare company operating in 35 states. The agreement resolves allegations that Maxim violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) at its Gardena, California office by discriminating against a non-U.S. citizen worker.
The department determined that Maxim rejected the worker's valid document showing her permission to work and required lawful permanent residents working for the company to prove their continued permission to work, even though it was unnecessary.
"Employers cannot treat employees differently based on their citizenship status when verifying their permission to work," said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. "The department is committed to ensuring that employers do not deny workers equal treatment in the workplace, whether in hiring, checking employees’ permission to work or otherwise."
An investigation by the Civil Rights Division’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) concluded that Maxim improperly rejected the worker’s valid document based on her citizenship status. Specifically, the company rejected the worker’s employment authorization document (EAD) because her last name differed from that on her driver’s license and Social Security card. This rejection occurred despite similar circumstances being accepted for U.S. citizens and despite Homeland Security rules requiring only that an EAD appear genuine and relate to the worker.
The investigation also found that Maxim routinely required lawful permanent residents to present unnecessary documentation when their Permanent Resident Cards expired, contrary to law. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from rejecting valid documents or asking for specific or unnecessary documents due to a worker’s citizenship or immigration status.
Under the settlement terms, Maxim will pay a civil penalty to the United States and lost wages to the affected worker. Additionally, it will train its employees on INA's anti-discrimination requirements, revise its employment policies and processes, and be subject to department monitoring.
IER enforces INA's anti-discrimination provision which prohibits discrimination based on citizenship status and national origin in hiring, firing, or recruitment. It also prohibits unfair documentary practices and retaliation and intimidation.
For more information on avoiding discrimination when verifying someone’s permission to work, employers can visit IER’s website. Guidance on handling discrepancies in names appearing on employees’ Form I-9 documents is also available.