Table 1. Many opponents of the H-1B visa seek to pit native-born workers against their foreign-born colleagues. In reality, workers do not necessarily compete against each other for a fixed number of jobs. The United States has created a dynamic and powerful economy. Foreign-born workers of all types and skills, from every corner of the globe, have joined with native-born workers to build it. Indeed, H-1B workers positively impact our economy and the employment opportunities of native-born workers.
Despite suggestions to the contrary, the overwhelming evidence shows that H-1B workers do not drive down wages of native-born workers, with some studies showing a positive impact on wages overall. Research shows that H-1B workers complement U. The United States faces challenges in meeting the growing needs of an expanding knowledge-based innovation economy. Arguments that highly skilled, temporary foreign workers are freezing out native-born workers are rebutted by the best available empirical evidence.
Figure 2: Unemployment Rates in the United States, to Simply put, no. H-1B visas bolster innovation in the U. Moreover, although the use of H-1B visas in the high-tech industry garners substantial public attention, high-skilled immigrants play other crucial roles in the U. Skip to main content. Fact Sheet. Business and the Workforce High Skilled. July 26, The EEOC's Houston District Office sued defendant alleging that it discriminated against an applicant on the basis of his age and because of his wife's disability.
Department of Energy.
Despite these recommendations, the facility's director, who had direct supervisory authority over the hiring manager, repeatedly stated that charging party should not be hired because of his age Swafford then was 56 years old and because his wife had cancer, which the facility's director assumed would interfere with charging party's ability to perform his job duties.
The director's discriminatory statements were made both verbally and in writing in emails to company officials in New Orleans, including his supervisor, the Human Resources Director, the CEO and the company's General Counsel. Subsequently, the manager hired a year-old applicant with no prior experience with the company or its program-specific software.
The Commission filed suit under the ADA's "association provision", which prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees because of their association with an individual with a disability. The district court granted summary judgment for the company. However, in a unanimous decision, the U. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for a trial on the merits.
Western Trading Co. The EEOC's Phoenix District Office sued defendant for failing to provide the charging party with a reasonable accommodation because of his disability. Charging party was allowed to return to work after providing three separate releases from his doctors, but was then sent home when Western Trading learned of a second seizure during his off-duty hours. The lawsuit alleged that despite additional information from charging party's doctors, he was not permitted to return to work.
The EEOC also alleged that Western Trading unlawfully kept charging party's medical records with his other personal information. A federal jury unanimously found that Western Trading terminated the charging party because of his epilepsy. AutoZone, Inc. The EEOC's Chicago District Office sued defendant, a national retailer of automotive parts and accessories, alleging that it discriminated against the charging party on the basis of his disability.
Shepherd III, mop floors at the end of the day, an activity that aggravated Shepherd's back impairment. The assignment caused Shepherd intense pain and ultimately led to serious injury. The EEOC also showed that company officials refused to eliminate the mopping assignment despite repeated requests from Shepherd and his doctor. In February , the U. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held there was no basis for granting judgment to the company as a matter of law or for ordering a new trial.
This was the second appellate victory for the EEOC in this case. An earlier appellate decision, EEOC v. Creative Networks, L. The EEOC's Phoenix District Office sued defendant, a company which provides job training and educational support services to individuals with developmental and other disabilities, alleging that Creative Networks violated the ADA by adhering to a rigid policy of denying deaf and hearing-impaired applicants' requests for required American Sign Language ASL interpreting services. The EEOC accused Creative Networks of discriminating against Rochelle Duran, an applicant who is deaf, by denying her request for ASL interpreting services necessary to complete the company's mandatory hour pre-employment orientation and training program.
Creative Networks admitted it had sufficient resources to afford the interpretation services. When Duran was unable to attend the training due to Creative Networks' refusal to provide her with a reasonable accommodation, the company declined to hire her. The EEOC moved for partial summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion. The district court held as a matter of law that Creative Networks failed to accommodate and failed to hire Duran because of her disability in violation of the ADA.
Dillard's Inc. The EEOC's Los Angeles District Office sued defendant, a nationwide chain of department stores, alleging systemic discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ADA when it required employees to disclose personal and confidential medical information or face disciplinary action including termination.
The EEOC originally filed suit in to seek relief for Corina Scott, and other Dillard's employees, who were required to disclose the exact nature of their medical conditions to be approved for sick leave. According to the EEOC, Scott - who was absent from work for a mere four days - and others were fired in retaliation for their refusal to provide details of their medical conditions, despite the fact that many of Dillard's doctors advised against disclosure in accordance with the ADA.
Texas Instruments - Wikipedia
The EEOC alleged that the company's policy violated the ADA, which prohibits employers from making inquiries into the disabilities of their employees, unless they are job-related and necessary to conduct employer's business. Additionally, the EEOC claimed that Dillard's enforced a maximum-leave policy limiting the amount of health-related leave an employee could take.
Dillard's, in practice, did not regularly engage in an interactive process with employees to determine if more leave was required under the ADA as an accommodation of the employee's disability. The consent decree further required that Dillard's hire a consultant with ADA experience to review and revise company policies as appropriate; post documentation related to the settlement; implement effective training for both supervisors and staff on the ADA with an emphasis on medical inquiries and maximum-leave policies; and develop a centralized tracking system for employee complaints involving disability discrimination.
Dillard's will submit annual reports to the EEOC verifying compliance with the decree. United Airlines , F.
The EEOC's suit charges that United violated the ADA by refusing to place workers with disabilities in vacant positions for which they were qualified and which they needed in order to continue working. United required employees to compete for jobs on the company website - a practice that frequently prevented employees with disabilities from continuing their employment. The district court dismissed the Commission's suit, applying then-existing precedent holding that the ADA does not compel companies to non-competitively reassign qualified disabled employees as a reasonable accommodation.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court's decision and overturned its own precedent, agreeing with the EEOC's argument that "the ADA does indeed mandate that an employer appoint employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified, provided that such accommodations would be ordinarily reasonable and would not present an undue hardship to the employer.
Service Temps, Inc. The EEOC's Dallas District Office sued defendant, a temporary employment agency, when it refused to consider an applicant who was deaf for the position of stock clerk because of her disability. The EEOC had charged that Service Temps refused to hire Jacquelyn Moncada for a stock clerk position, despite her qualifications and experience, upon learning that Moncada is deaf. Through a sign language interpreter, Moncada attempted to explain to the company that she was fully capable of performing the job and that she had several years of stock clerk experience.
Nevertheless, the company refused to conduct an interview or consider Moncada for the position. A Service Temps manager explicitly told Moncada that she would not be hired because she could not hear. The district court also granted the EEOC's motion for an injunction, and ordered the defendant not to discriminate against disabled employees; to post a notice explaining the ADA's protections; to give ADA training to managers; and to notify the EEOC when an employee complains of disability discrimination.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict and the lower court's rulings on damages and injunctive relief. Resources for Human Development , F.
The EEOC's Houston District Office sued defendant, a residential treatment facility for women with chemical dependency and their children, for firing employee Lisa Harrison because of her severe obesity. However, defendant perceived her as substantially limited in a number of major life activities, including walking, as a result of her severe obesity. The district court denied both of the defendant's motions for summary judgment and held that severe obesity is an impairment within the meaning of the ADA.
The court concluded that severe obesity may qualify as a disability regardless of whether it is caused by a physiological disorder, rejecting defendant's argument to the contrary.