![]() |
![]() |
|
IMMIGRANTS & LAWYERS SUBSCRIBE Enter email: The
Immigration Copyright |
Judge Rules Salary Withholding For H-1B Worker Is Not Discriminatoryby Gregory SiskindIn
the Matter of Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor,
v. Teachers’ Placement Group, et al., 2003-LCA-14 (OALJ, Feb. 23,
2004), the Office of Administrative Law Judges said that there
was a need for a salary withholding from the salaries of fifteen H-1B
teachers because the Newark Public School System refused to pay the
Teachers’ Placement Group (TPG), the H-1B Employer/Contractor for the
teachers’ services,
and instead insisted on paying the teachers directly. On February 5, 2003, the
Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the US Department of Labor
issued a determination letter to TPG for willfully failing to pay the
required wages to fifteen H-1B immigrant teachers, discriminating against
the fifteen teachers and failing to establish a prevailing wage in
accordance with Labor Condition Application (LCA) regulations. TPG contested the determination
and requested a hearing, which was held from June 9-10,
2003. TPG hired fifteen math and
science teachers from India for the Newark, New Jersey public school
system and filed an LCA with the Department of Labor in March 2001. The LCA set the prevailing wage at
$18,680 per year according to the Occupational Employment Wage
Survey. The LCA was certified
in April 2001. TPG had all fifteen
teachers sign an employment agreement that stated TPG would pay $38,000
per year to those teachers who passed all of the Praxis examinations
required for teacher certification in New Jersey. Those who did not pass the exams
would receive a salary of $22,000 per year. TPG’s petition for fifteen
H-1B visas was approved in August 2001. The teachers arrived in the US in
late September and early October, and began working in early October. As there was a three-month delay
in paying the teachers, TPG paid the teachers three salary advances at
$1,250 per advance. The
advances were repaid in full to TPG in December 2001 when the teachers
received their salaries. The delay in paying the
salaries was due to confusion between Newark Public Schools and TPG. When Newark Public Schools
contracted TPG to hire the teachers, it was agreed that the school system
would pay TPG and TPG would pay the teachers. In November, the Superintendent of
Human Resources for Newark Public Schools, Randall Kanter, informed TPG
that Newark Public Schools could not make TPG a vendor and the teachers
would have to be paid directly by the school system. TPG explained that because it was
the employer listed on the H-1B visas, it had to pay the teachers’
salaries. Newark Public Schools reached a compromise with TPG whereby the
school system would pay the teachers directly and would arrange for money
to be deducted from the teachers’ salaries and paid to TPG. The teachers’ salaries would be
set at the Newark salary scale minus twenty-five percent, which would be
paid to TPG. TPG met with the teachers
in December 2001 to inform them of Newark’s decision regarding their
salaries and asked the teachers to sign an agreement authorizing Newark
Public Schools to deduct twenty-five percent of the gross salary as a fee
to TPG. A Newark Public
Schools representative also met with the teachers to ensure that there
were no concerns about the salaries to be paid. All fifteen teachers signed the
agreement. Shortly after signing the
agreement, the teachers filed a grievance with the Superintendent of
Schools regarding the twenty-five percent withholding from their
salaries. The school board
determined that the situation was a problem between TPG and the
teachers. The withholding
continued until May 2002 when the teachers informed Newark Public Schools
that it was revoking the withholding authorization. Newark Public Schools subsequently
sponsored the teachers’ H-1B visas.
TPG then filed a Civil Action for damages against the Newark Public
Schools and the fifteen teachers in US District Court. The Administrator of the
Wage and Hour Division charged TPG with failing to establish a proper
prevailing wage. To support
this charge, the Administrator brought the testimony from the Enforcement
Coordinator for the DOL, Wage and Hour Division, Mary Dodds. Dodds testified that while the
prevailing wage chosen by TPG is applicable to teachers, only educational institutions could use
this rate. As TPG is clearly not an educational institution, Dodds stated
that TPG should have chosen a “slightly higher” wage rate, but did not
specify what the rate should have been. The Office of Administrative Law
Judges (OALJ) stated that the Administrator did not establish that the
Respondent had a violation with its choice of prevailing wage rates. The OALJ further ruled that “the
Administrator has not shown that TPG did not pay the wage required by its
LCA to the fifteen non-immigrant teachers it employed to teach at
Newark.” In its letter to TPG, the
Administrator contended that $3,050 was improperly collected by TPG from
each teacher for reimbursement of business expenses. 20 CFR § 655.731(c)(9)(iii)(c)
states that authorized deductions from an employer’s wage cannot include
reimbursement for the employer’s business expenses. The OALJ agreed with the
Administrator and ruled that TPG must return the $3,050 it collected from
each teacher. The Administrator also
asserted that TPG discriminated against the fifteen teachers when it had
them sign the withholding agreement.
Under 20 CFR § 655.801(a), for an employer’s actions toward an
employee to be considered discriminatory, the actions must be in response
to the employee disclosing information that “evidences a violation of
section 212(n) of the INA or any regulation relating [thereto] or
cooperated or sought to cooperate in an investigation or other proceeding
concerning the employer’s compliance with the requirements of section
212(n) of the INA.” The OALJ
found that “the conduct described by the Administrator as discriminatory
was not in response to a disclosure of a violation or participation in an
investigation.” The OALJ concluded that TPG
must pay the DOL $3,050 for each of the fifteen teachers it sponsored for
H-1B visas, the DOL’s claim that TPG failed to pay the required wage was
dismissed, the DOL’s claim that TPG discriminated against the teachers was
dismissed, the DOL’s claim that TPG failed to establish a prevailing wage
in compliance with the LCA was dismissed and the DOL’s assessment of a
penalty against TPG was dismissed.
About The Author
Gregory Siskind is a partner in Siskind Susser's Memphis, Tennessee, office. After graduating magna cum laude from Vanderbilt University, he received his Juris Doctorate from the University of Chicago. Mr. Siskind is a member of AILA, a board member of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and a member of the ABA, where he serves on the LPM Publishing Board as Marketing Vice Chairman. He is the author of several books, including the J Visa Guidebook and The Lawyer's Guide to Marketing on the Internet. Mr. Siskind practices all areas of immigration law, specializing in immigration matters of the health care and technology industries. He can be reached by email at gsiskind@visalaw.com.
The opinions expressed in this article do not
necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.
Copyright ©
1999-2002 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM
ILW.COM Home
page | Advertise on
ILW.COM | Link to
us | About
us | Terms of use
The Immigration Portal from the
leading immigration law publisher
Over 25000 pages of free information!
| |||||||||||||