So any ideas how we get round this?
 

My company moved me to Delaware late last year on an L1 visa. My husband came on an L2. He applied and received his work authorisation in January and has been doing the rounds looking for work. Last week after a successful interview he appeared to have struck gold. However they have just contacted him and told him that the firms HR department have recommended against hiring him because of his visa status, (the fact that it is tied to mine). Their agruement is that should anything happen to my job he will be affected and they don't want to take the risk.

Has anyone else come across this? If so how did you deal with it, if not does anyone have any good ideas how we can convince the company to give him the job?

Re: So any ideas how we get round this?
 

all they are required to know by law that he has work authorisation and a social security number.

I'd advise not disclosing if at all possible what visa he is here on.

Re: So any ideas how we get round this?
 

As long as your husband, on the L2, can fulfill the requirements of the Federal I-9 form, then he is legally entitled to be employed.

When showing the documentation to prove the right to work, it is the right of the candidate to choose what he or she can select what he/she presents to the employer.

It sounds as if your husband has already stated that he has an L2 (on hindsight, probably best not to have mentioned this).

The argument from the HR department of the risks of hiring your husband are frankly, IMHO, bullshit. The reason is that thousands of American workers have to quit jobs when the other working adult in the household gets a better job and the couple (and possibly family) have to relocate elsewhere. This is my analogy to the L1/L2 situation that you and your husband are in.

Your husband might wish to ask an HR department for evidence in the Statutes where it expressly forbids employers from hiring L2s. I sense that the employer is discriminating against your husband.

It might be helpful to look in the US Visas forum of BE and search for similar threads. If there's nothing similar, then post over there.

I wish you and your husband luck.

Re: So any ideas how we get round this?
 

They are, and legally they are not allowed to...could always threaten to sue them :D

Re: So any ideas how we get round this?
 

Your husband needs to talk to the people who want to hire him and tell them why HR is full of crap. He won't win an argument with the HR department, but you pointed out that the final decision is not with them.

Re: So any ideas how we get round this?
 

Thanks for all the great replies. I passed on your advice to my husband and he took the bull by the horns and made a few phone calls.
He managed to get a quick conversation with the guy who interviewed him and asked him to let the HR department know that as he has a valid SSN and work authorisation the L2 visa status is not relevant and should not affect their decision making - and guess what it may have worked. He's been asked back next week for a final interview and a look round the office, so it's fingers crossed time!



P.S. If i can figure this karma thing out i will be giving you all some for the excellent assistance

Re: So any ideas how we get round this?
 

Nice result. Best of luck to your husband for his interview.

Re: So any ideas how we get round this?
 

Sure they are. Ls are not protected. Nor are Ks for that matter...

I would say the most legally significant point of discrimination in this case is marital status discrimination.

Re: So any ideas how we get round this?
 

Funny how companies obsess over the possible ways employees could leave, but at the same time offer nothing in the way of job security themselves.

If a person is the best for the job and is eligible to work, s/he should get the job. I don't have figures on average tenure here in the US, but it's likely on the order of five years max. The best qualified worker is going to produce the best result for the company from his/her first day on the job. Being on an L2 visa is actually in some ways a pro *because* of de facto ability to get another job if the current one doesn't measure up; your husband is probably more likely to stick around than a USC.

I agree that your husband is probably feeling the effects of backlash against all non-USCs due to resentment over outsourcing, H1-B visa abuse, and plain xenophobia. These same companies formerly hired H1-B visa holders because they were supposedly of higher calibre than USCs, and H1-B visa holders were only supposed to work in the US for two years max.

The nice thing about HR is that you generally only have to deal with them at the outset. Fingers crossed that things work out for the best :)

Re: So any ideas how we get round this?
 

Unfortunately there's no marital status discrimination. Without the marriage, the L2 holder would not be eligible to work at all.

Best advice? Avoid discussing marital status, whether you have children, or anything not relevant to the job. It's not required and employers discriminate every day. It's next to impossible to prove and even if you do, no one will ever want to hire you.

For instance, I have to disclose that I have a child to explain the gap in my work history, but I will not volunteer that I am divorced because the perception of single parents as employees isn't good. I got asked if I had health insurance coverage elsewhere "through my husband" because one particular position did not provide it. I answered that yes, I was covered elsewhere (on my own policy).

Re: So any ideas how we get round this?
 

well there not allowed to discrimate if you have a valid work authorisation...

Re: So any ideas how we get round this?
 

This is a popular misconception. They may discriminate against anyone not in a "protected class," which is essentially everyone except greencard holders, citizens, and a few other odds and ends that pander to the Mexican lobby. The rest of us, unfortunately, are not covered.

This is why it is so critically important not to reveal to a potential employer what your visa status is, and the law does not require you to tell them. "I am authorized to work in the United States" is sufficient, if they ask.

Incidentally, my employer does not know what visa status I am in.

Re: So any ideas how we get round this?
 

Aren't they required to check *after* hiring you? I think the form name is I-9 where you must provide proof of identity and proof of eligibility -- for USCs it's a driving licence plus *an original SS card* or a passport will do for both. They have to make copies of the original documents and keep on file. That's ALL they are required to do -- they aren't required to scutinise the documents to spot fakes.

If at a large company, all that stuff is kept in HR and your immediate supervisor may well not know what visa status you are in.

Re: So any ideas how we get round this?
 

It is entirely up to the candidate to reveal their visa status. All that the employer need know and see proof of is that the employee (once hired) has appropriate proof of the ability to work legally in the US.

If I recall rightly, the I-9 should be completed within the first three days of the employee starting work.

See-
http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/files/i-9.pdf
which are the instructions and the form itself. Note the first paragraph in a box at the top of the Instructions.




NC Penguin

Re: So any ideas how we get round this?
 

It's illegal for them to do this - sue them. If he has work authorization and can do the job, they can't turn him down for the reason they gave. It'd be like turning a woman down in case she got pregnant......