RSS Feed!


Author Archive

OFCCP: Transparency in Action | Shining a Light on Compliance Procedures (Sept. 2018)

Thursday, September 20th, 2018

At OFCCP, we succeed when contractors succeed. Today, we are taking another step toward joint success with the release of two new policy directives, shining a brighter light on our compliance activities and establishing a program to hear concerns that contractors may be reluctant to share.

The Transparency Directive provides specific procedures that will help contractors comply with their obligations, know what to expect during a compliance evaluation, and protect workers from discrimination through the consistent enforcement of OFCCP legal authorities.

The Ombud Directive launches a program to create an impartial and independent Ombud Service to facilitate the fair and equitable resolution of specific types of concerns raised by OFCCP external stakeholders. Though there are not ramifications for contacting OFCCP, we want to be sure contractors always have a line of communication they feel they can trust to ask questions or raise concerns.


Justice Department Announces Fourth Settlement Protecting U.S. Workers From Discrimination (Sept. 2018)

Thursday, September 20th, 2018

The Justice Department today reached a settlement agreement with Palmetto Beach Hospitality LLC (Palmetto), a company that provides housekeeping services to hotels in the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina area. The agreement resolves the Department’s investigation into whether Palmetto unlawfully denied employment to qualified and available U.S. workers because it preferred to hire temporary foreign workers with H-2B visas. It is the fourth settlement under the Civil Rights Division’s Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative, which is aimed at targeting, investigating, and taking enforcement actions against companies that discriminate against U.S. workers in favor of temporary visa workers.

The Department’s investigation determined that Palmetto failed to consider applications from qualified U.S. workers for its housekeeper positions, even though employers are required to recruit and hire available and qualified U.S. workers before they receive permission to hire temporary foreign workers under the H-2B visa program. After ignoring applications from U.S. workers, Palmetto represented to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) that it could not find qualified U.S. workers and obtained authorization to employ temporary visa workers.

“The Department of Justice will fight to ensure that U.S. workers are not denied jobs because an employer has a discriminatory preference for hiring temporary visa workers,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore of the Civil Rights Division. “I commend Palmetto for its cooperation with the Department’s investigation, and its agreement to engage in domestic recruitment efforts far surpassing the minimal recruiting requirements to participate in the H-2B visa worker program.”

Failing to consider or hire qualified U.S. workers based on their citizenship status violates the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), regardless of whether an employer has complied with other rules governing the use of temporary employment-based visa programs.

Under the settlement, Palmetto must engage in several types of enhanced recruiting and job advertising efforts to attract qualified U.S. workers, far beyond those required by the H-2B visa rules. Palmetto also must set aside $35,000 to pay any wages lost by U.S. workers whose applications it improperly rejected or ignored, pay $42,000 in civil penalties to the United States, and be subject to departmental monitoring.

Under the Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative, the Civil Rights Division has opened dozens of investigations, filed one lawsuit, and reached settlement agreements with four employers. Since the Initiative’s inception, employers have agreed to pay or have distributed over $320,000 in back pay to affected U.S. workers. The Division has also increased its collaboration with other federal agencies, including a new formalized partnership with DOL to combat discrimination and abuse by employers using foreign visa workers.

The Division’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. Among other things, the statute prohibits citizenship status and national origin discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee; unfair documentary practices; and retaliation and intimidation.

More information on how employers can avoid unlawful citizenship status discrimination is available here. For more information about protections against employment discrimination under immigration laws, call IER’s worker hotline at 1-800-255-7688 (1-800-237-2515, TTY for hearing impaired); call IER’s employer hotline at 1-800-255-8155 (1-800-237-2515, TTY for hearing impaired); sign up for a free webinar; email; or visit IER’s English and Spanish websites. Subscribe to GovDelivery to receive updates from IER.

Applicants or employees who believe they were subjected to: discrimination based on their citizenship, immigration status, or national origin in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee; discrimination in the employment eligibility verification process (Form I-9 and E-Verify) based on their citizenship, immigration status or national origin; or retaliation can file a charge or contact IER’s worker hotline for assistance.


Download Palmetto Settlement Agreement

“Auxiliary Aids and Services Available on Request to Persons With Disabilities”

Saturday, September 15th, 2018

If you operate or administer federally funded programs and activities, or if you are a state or local government agency, federal civil rights laws require that you include the foregoing notice on all publications, broadcasts, and other communications. These federal laws are the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008. The idea here is that persons with sensory, manual, or speaking disabilities are entitled to nondiscrimination and an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, programs or activities funded by the United States government.

What are some examples of written communications that must include this notice?

The “auxiliary aids and services” notice must be included on a variety of written materials, including:

√ outreach materials
√ recruitment materials
√ orientation packets
√ brochures
√ written advertisements
√ application, registration, and enrollment forms
√ participant and employee manuals and handbooks

Take a look at the written and electronic materials that you distribute to staff, clients, and the public. Make sure these communications contain the “auxiliary aids and services” notice. An easy and inexpensive fix for written communications that do not currently provide the notice is to create computer-generated labels and affix these labels to the communications.

What does “auxiliary aids and services” involve?

Auxiliary aids and services encompass a wide variety of tools that you may use to assist persons with disabilities, including:

√ qualified readers
√ notetakers
√ taped texts
√ audio recordings
√ brailled materials
√ large print materials
√ equipment, devices, and software (such as assistive hearing devices, speech recognition software, and so on)
√ TDD/TTY or telephone relay service. Keep in mind here that any communication containing your telephone number must also include the TDD/TTY number or the number of the relay service you use. You must also make sure these numbers are operational and staff is trained regarding their use.
√ Qualified sign language interpreters

It is important to remember that any “auxiliary aid or service” must be provided at no charge to the individual with a disability.

What are your obligations to communicate to individuals with disabilities?

You have the obligation to “effectively” communicate with persons who have mobility, hearing, and visual impairments. “Effective” communication means it gets the job done. Often, this may be accomplished through use of auxiliary aids and services. And, keep in mind that:

√ You must provide persons with disabilities information as to the existence and location of accessible services, activities, and facilities; and

√ You must post the international symbol for accessibility at each primary entrance to an accessible facility. For inaccessible facilities, you must provide signage at the primary entrances, which directs folks to a location where they may obtain information about accessible facilities. See 41 C.F.R. § 101-19.6.

To whom do you have these obligations?

You are obliged to offer “auxiliary aids and services” to a variety of categories of persons with disabilities, including:

√ beneficiaries
√ registrants
√ applicants
√ eligible applicants and eligible registrants
√ participants
√ applicants for employment (for example, you may
need to provide accommodation for the interview
process, such as a qualified interpreter when
interviewing persons with hearing impairments)
√ members of the public

In determining the type of auxiliary aid or service to provide, you must give primary consideration to the request of the individual with a disability. A request for an “auxiliary aid or service” constitutes a request for reasonable accommodation or reasonable modification. Such a request must be reviewed and considered on a case-by-case basis; you cannot impose “blanket” policies or procedures. And, while you may consider “undue hardship” in providing accommodation, the process for considering a reasonable accommodation request is an interactive one and, in the end, you are obliged to provide an accommodation that is “effective.”

What are the obligations of private employers?

So far, we have focused on the obligations of entities that administer and/or operate federally funded programs and activities as well as the obligations of state and local governments with regard to persons with disabilities. Turning to private employers, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provide guidance for employers of 15 or more employees.

While private employers are not required to have the “auxiliary aids and services” notice on all their communications, these employers are prohibited by federal civil rights laws from discriminating against “qualified individuals with disabilities” with respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of their employment. Discrimination may occur in a variety of employment practices, such as:

√ hiring and firing
√ job application procedures
√ job assignment
√ training
√ promotions
√ wages
√ benefits (including health insurance)
√ leave

A “qualified individual with a disability” is an individual who: (1) meets the bona fide occupational requirements (i.e., legitimate skill, education, and experience requirements for the job); and (2) can perform the “essential functions” of the job (otherwise defined as the core duties that are the reason for existence of the job position). The person with a disability must meet these two criteria even without accommodation to be deemed “qualified.” On the other hand, a private employer is prohibited from disqualifying this person on grounds that s/he is unable to perform marginal or incidental job functions. See also prior paper titled, “The Meaning of Disability.”

If a “qualified individual with a disability” requests accommodation, the private employer must consider the accommodation request. Accommodation requests may take the form of:

√ requesting an auxiliary aid or service as described above
√ restructuring a job
√ modifying or adjusting the work environment
√ making existing facilities accessible to, and useable by, persons with disabilities
√ modifying work schedules
√ reassigning a current employee to a vacant position for which the employee is qualified

The purpose of providing reasonable accommodation is to allow the qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to contribute fully in the workplace and enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment.

A private employer should give consideration to a person’s accommodation request, but the employer is not required to provide accommodation if it would create “undue hardship.” Under hardship is an action that constitutes “significant difficulty or expense” in relation to the size of the employer, the employer’s resources, and the nature of the employer’s operation. This may also involve health and safety concerns; specifically, the individual poses a “direct threat” to self and/or others. Accommodation requests and considerations of undue hardship must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Seena Foster is an attorney and award-winning author of “Civil Rights Investigations Under the Workforce Investment Act and Other Title VI-Related Laws: From Intake to Final Determination.” She is also a Partner with Title VI Consulting in Alexandria, VA. You may visit her website at

OFCCP: Building an Affirmative Action Program (Sept. 2018)

Friday, September 14th, 2018

WHAT is a FAAP? OFCCP knows from listening to stakeholders that an affirmative action program only covering employees in one building at a specific geographical location does not always reflect how business actually operates.

Affirmative action programs based on functional units, or FAAPs, may provide a better option. FAAPs can span geographical locations, freeing federal contractors from the traditional establishment-based model when employees who work together are not located in the same building.

WHAT’s new? Yesterday, OFCCP proposed changes that reduce burden for contractors in the FAAP program. You can learn more about the program, and the proposed changes to it, by reading a notice in the Federal Register and a draft of the revised FAAP Directive.

WHO should use a FAAP? OFCCP encourages all contractors who need to develop an AAP to consider using a FAAP. As always, OFCCP will be available to assist contractors before, during, and after the standard FAAP review process.

HOW can I give OFCCP feedback on the FAAP program? We would like to hear your thoughts on how the FAAP program could be improved to work better for you. To share your thoughts, please submit comments via

Comments on this proposal must be submitted on or before November 13, 2018.


IER & EEOC Webinar on Employment Discrimination Protections for AAPI and other Worker Communities

Friday, September 14th, 2018

The EEOC Boston Area Office and IER are offering a free webinar on employment discrimination protections for AAPI and other worker communities. This webinar is open to all members of the public.

Join the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Boston Area Office and the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) for a free webinar on worker protections against employment discrimination. The webinar is open to all members of the public. It will discuss worker’s rights under laws these offices enforce with a focus on issues that might be relevant to Asian American and Pacific Islander communities.

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

1:30 – 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time


For webinar materials in alternate format or other reasonable accommodation requests, contact Lorren Love at or (202) 616-5594 at least one week before the webinar or as soon as possible, to ensure there is adequate time to arrange for the accommodation. In your request, please include a description of the type of accommodation needed and your contact information.

Political Affiliation Discrimination by Seena Foster

Wednesday, September 5th, 2018

Political affiliation discrimination occurs when an adverse action is taken against a person based on the person’s political affiliation or beliefs. Political affiliation discrimination may arise in federally-assisted programs and activities as well as in the workplace. As the equal opportunity professional for your agency or organization, you must know the federal civil rights laws that apply to your agency or organization, and whether those laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of political affiliation.

We are going to explore two areas where political affiliation discrimination is prohibited by federal civil rights laws—one example involves federally-assisted programs and activities under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), and the second example involves employment decisions of public employers.

Federally-assisted programs and activities

Starting with federally-assisted programs and activities, Section 188 of WIOA prohibits discrimination in certain workforce development programs on a variety of bases, including political affiliation or belief. Unemployment insurance benefits, employment referral services, on-the-job training, resume writing, and interview skill development are some examples of the aid, training, services, and benefits funded by the federal government through WIOA. American Job Network centers, Job Corps centers, and certain community colleges are prime examples of WIOA-Title I funded recipients and sub-recipients that are prohibited from engaging in political affiliation discrimination in delivering aid, benefits, services, and training to the public. And, any state, U.S. territory, or other recipient receiving WIOA-Title I funds also must comply with WIOA’s prohibition on political affiliation discrimination.

To provide an example of political affiliation discrimination prohibited by WIOA Section 188, let’s say that a new political party received the majority of votes in your state or U.S. territory. Members of the new party take office and they issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for organizations and companies to apply for WIOA grant monies to deliver training to unemployed persons. Reviewers of the 100 proposals select 25 organizations and companies for the WIOA grants. Of these 25 entities, a total of 24 entities are owned by persons whose known political affiliations are aligned with those of the new party in office. Only one entity has a known political affiliation with the former party in power. Of the 75 entities not selected for the grants, 55 have known political affiliations with the former party, 5 have unknown political affiliations, and 15 have known affiliations with the new party. If the new party has, in fact, considered an entity’s political affiliation in determining whether the entity would receive a WIOA-funded grant, then the new party has engaged in political affiliation-based discrimination in violation of the nondiscrimination mandates of WIOA Section 188. As a result, the RFP process would be null and void.

So, if you administer or operate WIOA-Title I programs or activities, you are prohibited from basing your decisions regarding delivery of aid, benefits, services, or training on an applicant’s, participant’s, or beneficiary’s political affiliation or belief. As the equal professional for an agency or organization operating these programs, you must train staff and decision-makers that aid, benefits, training, and services cannot be doled out based on political affiliation. Monitor your systems of delivery to ensure continued adherence to this nondiscrimination mandate.

Public employers

Turning to the workplace, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which applies to public employers and is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, prohibits political affiliation discrimination. Public employers include state and local governments as well as other entities like publicly-funded colleges and universities, the police, and so on. This federal civil rights law requires that employment decisions, such as selection, promotion, and termination cannot be based on consideration of the employee’s or potential employee’s political affiliation or belief.

Take, for example, the case of Wagner v. Jones, 664 F.3d 259 (8th Cir. 2011), where the Dean of a publicly-funded college of law denied a legal writing teaching position to an applicant because of the applicant’s political affiliation. Notably, the applicant’s conservative political affiliations and beliefs were apparent from her resume, which reflected a background with certain conservative educational institutions and employers. Evidence of record demonstrated that one out of 50 law school faculty members at the college was a registered Republican. And, the court noted that two, less experienced applicants were later hired for the position at issue. In the end, the court concluded that the Dean presented insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the applicant’s political affiliation was not a factor in the employment decision.

So, if you are the HR/EEO professional for a public employer, engage in training and outreach to managers and supervisors, including political appointees at the highest levels of your agency or organization, and inform them of them of their obligations and responsibilities of nondiscrimination based on political affiliation. Help them understand that political affiliation discrimination can take many forms from the more commonplace acts of non-selection, non-promotion, and termination to other acts such as engaging in hostile environment based on political affiliation, providing an adverse performance appraisal, relocating a worker to a less desirable office, and so on. Managers and supervisors should base employment-related decisions on the knowledge, skills, and abilities evident from an applicant’s educational background and experience, not the applicant’s political affiliation or belief.

However, for public employers, there is an exception to this rule that merits comment. Notably, employment decisions related to “confidential” employees and senior “policy-makers” may be based on the employee’s or potential employee’s political affiliation or belief without running afoul of federal civil rights laws. Keep in mind that this exception will apply to a very narrow category of folks working for, or seeking to work for, a public employer.

Here, we’ll take a look at another circuit court case that is illustrative. In Soderbeck v. Burnett County, Wisconsin, 752 F.2d 285 (7th Cir. 1985), the circuit court was confronted with a newly-elected sheriff’s decision to terminate an office employee because the employee was the wife of the former sheriff who lost the election. The Seventh Circuit provides a helpful discussion on the issue of “confidential” employees and “policy-makers” in the context of political affiliation discrimination:

A public agency that fires an employee because of his political beliefs or political affiliations infringes his freedom of speech, see Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), but there are exceptions to this principle, carved out to minimize its adverse impact on the effective functioning of government. For example, employees at the policy-making level of government can be fired on political grounds. Id. at 367-68 (plurality opinion); Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 722 F.2d 1307, 1309-10 (7th Cir.1983) (per curiam). Mrs. Soderbeck was not a policy maker; but if, as the defendants argue, she was the sheriff’s confidential secretary, then Kellberg could fire her without violating the Constitution. See Stegmaier v. Trammell, 597 F.2d 1027, 1038 (5th Cir.1979) (dictum). You cannot run a government with officials who are forced to keep political enemies as their confidential secretaries, and Mrs. Soderbeck was the political enemy of her husband’s political enemy, Kellberg. Any implication of the plurality opinion in Elrod v. Burns that only a policy maker is unprotected by the principle announced in that case was superseded by the broader formulation in the majority opinion in Branti v. Finkel, which allows an employee to be fired if ‘the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved.’ 445 U.S. at 518, 100 S.Ct. at 1294. See also Livas v. Petka, 711 F.2d 798, 800-01 (7th Cir.1983). It need not be a policy-making office. If Rosalynn Carter had been President Carter’s secretary, President Reagan would not have had to keep her on as his secretary.

Mrs. Soderbeck, however, had been trained as a bookkeeper and her title was bookkeeper, not secretary or confidential secretary; and though she did do most of the typing in the sheriff’s office, there was evidence that if the sheriff needed something typed he would hand his handwritten draft to whoever in the office was handy. Burnett County has a population of only 12,000 and a tiny sheriff’s office whose six employees at the time of Mrs. Soderbeck’s termination did not have sharply differentiated tasks; it was only after she was fired that a position of “confidential secretary” was created with a different job description from that of the bookkeeper’s position that Mrs. Soderbeck had occupied. So while she did typing and handled legal papers, such as summonses and warrants, the other employees did these things too. She also did janitorial work, and performed domestic chores for the prisoners in the county jail (which is in the same building as the sheriff’s office and home) as jail matron and laundress–not the usual functions of a confidential secretary. And she did not take dictation–no one in the office did. If she could be fired as a confidential employee, so could anyone else employed in the office, on the theory that if an office is small enough the tasks usually performed by the boss’s personal secretary may be parceled out among all the employees.

This is not to say that Mrs. Soderbeck was, as a matter of law, an employee who could not be fired because of her political affiliation. It is to say merely that the question was sufficiently uncertain to be one for the jury to decide. The defendants argue that whether or not an employee exercises a policy-making role or is a repository of confidences that make loyalty an essential part of his job description should always be a question of law, but we cannot agree with this point, for which no authority is offered, and which has been rejected in previous cases in this and other circuits. See, e.g., Nekolny v. Painter, 653 F.2d 1164, 1169 (7th Cir.1981); Stegmaier v. Trammell, supra, 597 F.2d at 1034 n. 8, and cases cited there.

If you are the HR/EEO professional for a public employer seeking to terminate, or take some other adverse action, against an employee because of the employee’s political affiliation, make sure the employee falls in the category of a “policy-maker” or “confidential employee.” While job titles and job descriptions may assist in this determination but, standing alone, job titles do not determine the outcome. You’ll need to get into the weeds of the employee’s actual day-to-day job duties and functions. Concluding that an employee is, or is not, a “policy-maker” or a “confidential employee” involves very fact specific findings that must be made on a case-by-case basis.

About Seena Foster

Seena Foster, award-winning civil rights author and Principal of the discrimination consulting firm, Title VI Consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, provides expertise and guidance in the areas of civil rights compliance and discrimination complaint investigations related to the delivery of federally-assisted workforce development programs and activities. Her customers include state and local governments, colleges and universities, private companies, private counsel, and non-profit organizations. You may contact her at, or visit her web site at for additional information regarding the services and resources she offers.

By way of background, in 2003, Ms. Foster served as a Senior Policy Analyst to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Civil Rights Center (CRC). In that capacity, she led a team of equal opportunity specialists to conduct disability-based technical assistance reviews of One-Stop centers, and she assisted the CRC’s leadership in preparing for limited English proficiency-based compliance reviews. Ms. Foster also analyzed and weighed witness statements and documents to prepare numerous final determinations for signature by the CRC Director, which resolved discrimination complaints under a variety of federal civil rights laws such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act. In 2006, Ms. Foster received the Secretary of Labor’s Equal Employment Opportunity Award in recognition of “exceptional efforts to ensure that individuals with disabilities have full access to employment and related services and benefits at the Nation’s One-Stop Career Centers.” And, at the request of the CRC, Ms. Foster served as a popular workshop speaker at national equal opportunity forums co-sponsored by the CRC and the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. Her presentations covered topics such as the WIA Section 188 disability checklist, conducting discrimination complaint investigations and writing final determinations, and conducting investigations of allegations involving harassment and hostile environment.

With a passion for ensuring nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in the delivery of federally-assisted programs and activities, Ms. Foster remains highly active in the field through her series of on-demand webcasts for equal opportunity professionals as well as through her mediation services, training, and assistance developing policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with applicable federal civil rights laws. Her training in the areas of compliance and complaint investigations has been described as “dynamic,” “hitting the nail on the head,” “well-organized,” and “informative.” And, her award-winning book on conducting discrimination complaint investigations is viewed as “eye-opening” and “the best on the market.” In 2007, Ms. Foster was certified as a mediator by the Virginia Supreme Court, and later obtained “Federal Workplace Mediation” certification through the Northern Virginia Mediation Service.

She is a member of the Human Rights Institute and Discrimination Law and Human Rights Law Committees of the International Bar Association. Ms. Foster received her undergraduate degree from Michigan State University, and she has a Juris Doctorate from The George Washington University Law School.

OFCCP to Recognize Innovative Contractors (Aug. 2018)

Friday, August 31st, 2018

To expand its compliance assistance tools and resources, OFCCP is developing an initiative that recognizes high-quality and high-performing contractors, as explained in Directive 2018-06, Contractor Recognition Program.

The new recognition program will honor contractors whose innovative practices have achieved measurable results, and who can mentor other contractors on how to elevate their own compliance practices.

OFCCP: New Resources for Contracting Officials (Aug. 2018)

Friday, August 31st, 2018

Federal agency contracting officials are integral partners with OFCCP in assisting and ensuring that federal contractors meet their equal employment opportunity obligations. As part of ongoing efforts to enhance compliance assistance, OFCCP has launched a new Contracting Officer Corner with a central repository of resources, including a new pre-award process guide and downloadable workplace posters, for both federal agency contracting officials and federal contractors.

U.S. Department of Justice Weekly Digest Bulletin: Employment Authorization Documents Extensions for Yemen and Haiti (Aug. 2018)

Sunday, August 26th, 2018

Information on EADs for TPS Yemen

USCIS has automatically extended the validity of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) issued under the TPS designation of Yemen with an original expiration date of Sept. 3, 2018, for 180 days, through March 2, 2019.

Additionally, individuals who have EADs with an expiration date of March 3, 2017, and who applied for a new EAD during the last re-registration period but have not yet received their new EAD are also covered by this automatic extension.

If your EAD is covered by this automatic extension, you may continue to use your existing EAD through March 2, 2019, as evidence that you are authorized to work.

To prove that you are eligible to continue working legally, you may show the following documentation to your employer. Government agencies may also accept these documents if they need to determine your immigration status:

Your TPS-related EAD with a Sept. 3, 2018, expiration date; or
Your TPS-related EAD with a March 3, 2017 expiration date and your EAD application receipt (Form I-797C, Notice of Action) that notes the application was received on or after Jan. 4, 2017

For more information:

Federal Register Notice announcing the automatic extension:

USCIS’s webpage on TPS Yemen:

Call the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) of the U.S. Department of Justice at 1-800-255-8155 (1-800-237-2515 TTY).

Information on EADs for TPS Haiti

USCIS is automatically extending the validity of certain employment authorization documents (EADs) issued under TPS Haiti through Jan. 17, 2019. If you are a TPS beneficiary under the Haiti designation with an EAD based on your TPS status, your EAD may now be valid through Jan. 17, 2019 if your EAD includes a category code of A12 or C19, you have not received your new EAD, and:

Your EAD expired on Jan.22, 2018, and you applied for a new EAD during the last re-registration period; or
Your EAD expired on July 22, 2017, and you applied for a new EAD on or after May 24, 2017.

You may continue to use your current EAD as evidence of your work authorization through Jan. 17, 2019. Because you have a pending EAD application, USCIS will mail you an individual Notice of Continued Evidence of Work Authorization that provides additional evidence of this automatic extension of your EAD through Jan. 17, 2019 to show to your employer. If you have not received the Notice of Continued Evidence of Work Authorization, please contact USCIS at 202-272-8377 or the USCIS Contact Center number. You may provide your employer with this notice until you receive your Notice of Continued Evidence of Work Authorization.

For more information:

Visit USCIS’s webpage on TPS Haiti:

Call the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) of the U.S. Department of Justice at 1-800-255-8155 (1-800-237-2515 TTY).

OFCCP Issues New Contractor Compliance Directive (Aug. 2018)

Saturday, August 25th, 2018

The OFCCP directive Analysis of Contractor Compensation Practices During a Compliance Evaluation outlines OFCCP’s standard procedures for reviewing contractor compensation practices during a compliance evaluation. This directive replaces OFCCP Directive 2013-03 (known as Directive 307) and clarifies OFCCP’s approach to compensation evaluations including the use of statistical and other evidence, pay analysis groupings and statistical modeling. The directive reinforces OFCCP’s commitment to greater transparency, consistency and efficiency in compliance evaluations.