Sunday, May 26, 2024

Freight transport firm’s driver’s license rule discriminates in opposition to foreign-born candidates, lawsuit alleges

This audio is auto-generated. Please tell us when you have suggestions.

Dive Transient:

  • A freight transportation firm’s coverage requiring, as a precondition of employment, that candidates have a state-issued U.S. driver’s license for no less than 12 months, allegedly discriminates on the idea of nationwide origin and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a rejected job seeker claimed in an April 25 lawsuit.
  • The applicant, a U.S. resident born in Afghanistan, is permitted to work within the U.S., in line with the grievance in Hamdard v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC. On the time he utilized to Swift Transportation, he had an Oregon driver’s license for 10 months, a world driver’s license, three years’ driving expertise in Afghanistan and a U.S. industrial driver’s license, the grievance stated.
  • After he utilized, he spoke with a Swift worker and an organization recruiter. Each allegedly advised him that Swift’s coverage prohibited him from being employed as a result of he didn’t meet the motive force’s license requirement, in line with the grievance. He later filed a class-action lawsuit, alleging that the motive force’s license requirement has a disparate impression on candidates who will not be born within the U.S. 

Dive Perception:

Knight Swift Transportation Holdings, Swift’s mum or dad firm, didn’t reply to a request for a remark previous to press time.

Hiring practices associated to non-U.S. residents are usually ruled by three federal legal guidelines: Title VII, the Immigration and Nationality Act (governing work visas) and the Immigration Reform and Management Act of 1986 (verification of employment eligibility).

Title VII and IRCA prohibit employers from discriminating in opposition to a job applicant on the idea of nationwide origin and sometimes contain overlapping elements of the hiring course of.

For instance, final 12 months, manufacturing staffing firm ResourceMFG agreed to pay $75,000 to settle allegations by the U.S. Equal Employment Alternative Fee that it violated Title VII by refusing to rent a naturalized U.S. citizen as a result of she was born in Germany.

In line with the EEOC, the applicant accomplished paperwork for a job with a authorities contractor that required workers to be U.S. residents however not that they be born within the U.S. Even so, ResourceMFG’s recruiter allegedly required the applicant to supply a U.S. delivery certificates, halting the method when the applicant stated she didn’t have one, however may produce paperwork exhibiting she was a U.S. citizen.

Correctly verifying eligibility to work within the U.S. additionally raises compliance points below the IRCA, which prohibits employers from refusing to just accept permissible paperwork or requiring extra paperwork than essential to show employment eligibility, the EEOC has beforehand reminded employers.

Related right here, Title VII additionally makes it unlawful for employers to make use of facially impartial choice standards (requirements that apply to everybody, no matter their nationwide origin) if such standards have a damaging impression on folks of a sure nationwide origin and will not be job-related or essential to enterprise operations, an EEOC steering states.

On this case, the applicant alleged the Swift recruiter advised him that apart from not assembly the motive force’s license requirement, he was “precisely what they want,” in line with the grievance. But, that requirement allegedly permits the corporate to refuse to rent in any other case certified, foreign-born drivers and isn’t per enterprise necessity, the grievance asserts.

Even when the requirement have been per enterprise necessity, “much less discriminatory alternate options exist that will equally serve any reliable goal,” the lawsuit alleged. “For example, if the priority have been whether or not the applicant has ample driving expertise, Swift may depend the motive force’s interval of worldwide driver’s licensure towards the 12 month requirement,” the lawsuit stated. 

Related Articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Stay Connected

- Advertisement -spot_img

Latest Articles