Jury Clears Tata Of U.S. Workers' Discrimination Claim

Jury Clears Tata Of U.S. Workers' Discrimination Claims

Law360, Oakland, Calif. (November 28, 2018, 6:43 PM EST) -- A California federal jury on Wednesday cleared Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. of certified class allegations that the Mumbai, India-based information technology outsourcing agency discriminates against non-South Asian workers in the U.S....
Share:

Supreme Court Vindicates President Trump

Supreme Court Vindicates President Trump
Agrees with IRLI that White House travel order is constitutional
WASHINGTON—Today, in a huge victory for the American people, the United States Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s travel order suspending entry into the United States by nationals of several countries that, Trump believed, failed adequately to vet their citizens for ties to terrorism. In so ruling, the Court tracked the reasoning of a friend-of-the-court brief that the Immigration Reform Law Institute had filed in the case. 
Lower courts had struck down the President’s order for exceeding his power under immigration law, and also – because most of the countries were majority-Muslim – for violating the Constitution’s ban on discrimination based on religion.
Today, in Trump v. Hawaii, the Court resoundingly rejected both contentions. Noting the provision of law in which Congress has vested extremely broad power in the President to exclude classes of aliens, or even all aliens, if he deems doing so in the national interest, the Court found that no other   part of immigration law restricted Trump’s authority to issue the order.
In its opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court also made short work of the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. Assuming – but pointedly not deciding – that the President had to articulate some rational basis for his order, the Court held that the President’s concerns about these countries’ inability to vet their nationals for terrorist ties was such a basis. Here the Court echoed the position that IRLI had taken in its briefs in this case and related cases: the President’s order was subject, at most, to rational basis review under the Constitution.
“This opinion restores the true Constitution, and preserves the President’s power to exclude any class of aliens whose entry he deems not in the national interest,” said Christopher Hajec, director of litigation of IRLI.  “At most, a future Court might require a rational basis for an exclusion – but it is remarkable that the Court today carefully avoided imposing even that minimal requirement.”
“The American people have the sovereign power to exclude aliens for any reason or no reason, and this power is exercised through their elected representatives – Congress and the President,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “In a major victory for the American people, the Court stayed true to that principle today. The lower court rulings in these cases would have allowed foreign groups to force themselves into the United States through lawsuits,” Wilcox added. “Because the Court today rebuked any such project, our national sovereignty – our ability to decide for ourselves who may come here – remains intact.”
The case is Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965 (Supreme Court).
For additional information, contact: Brian Lonergan • 202-232-5590 • blonergan@irli.org
© 2018 IRLI. All rights reserved.
This email was sent from the Immigration Reform Law Institute
25 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 335
 Washington, DC, 20001, United States
Connect with
us.




                         

This email was sent to pete@petebennett.net
Immigration Reform Law Institute, 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 335, Washington, D.C. 20001, United States 
Share:

Hillary’s Headhunter: Sleazeball Ken Salazar




He’s threatened reporters, distorted scientific evidence, and ignored the law. Now Hillary has hired him — of course.
The Loathsome Cowboy rides again.
Ken Salazar, President Obama’s disgraced former interior secretary and a former U.S. senator from Colorado, was named Hillary Clinton’s White House transition chair on Monday. The pick confirms that a Clinton presidency would not only be Barack Obama’s third term ideologically, but also culturally. As in the Democratic culture of corruption.
Ken Salazar is a thug. Before stepping down as Obama’s interior secretary in 2013 “to spend time with family,” Salazar threatened violence against a Colorado Springs Gazette reporter who had the audacity to challenge one of the ten-gallon-hat-wearing bureaucrat’s cronyism-tainted deals.



At issue: How rancher and reported Salazar business associate Tom Davis profited handsomely from the Bureau of Land Management’s Wild Horse and Burro Program. Not long after Salazar took office, Davis paid $10 apiece for more than 1,700 federally protected horses who roamed on public lands. He then turned around and sold them for slaughter near the Mexican border for $154,000, despite having signed a contract prohibiting him from doing so.
When Gazette reporter David Phillips (now at the New York Times) asked about the controversy at an Obama Election Night event in November 2012, Salazar snapped:
You know what, never do that. This is a — this is the Obama — You know what, if you do that to me again, I’m going to punch you out. OK? Don’t ever, ever, from the Gazette or anybody else do that to me again. Set me up. You know?
Caught on tape by Philipps and another witness, Knuckles Salazar issued an “apology.” But neither he nor Davis, who said he had previously hauled cattle for Salazar for years, ever answered for their actions. An inspector general determined Salazar’s department “failed to follow its own policy of limiting horse sales and ensuring that the horses sold went to good homes and were not slaughtered.” No penalties, no prosecution, no nothing.



Ken Salazar is a liar. He trampled the rule of law, defied court orders, and doctored scientific conclusions in the name of environmental protection. Have you forgotten? After the BP oil spill in 2010, the Obama White House imposed a radical six-month moratorium on America’s entire deepwater-drilling industry. The sweeping ban — inserted into a technical safety document in the middle of the night by Obama’s green extremists — cost an estimated 19,000 jobs and $1.1 billion in lost wages.
Federal judge Martin Feldman singled out the Salazar-run agency’s culture of contempt and serial ‘determined disregard’ for the law.
The order was supposedly based on recommendations from an expert oil-spill panel. But that panel’s own members (along with the federal judiciary) called out Obama’s environmental team for misleading the public about the scientific evidence and “contributing to the perception that the government’s findings were more exact than they actually were.” Salazar and eco czar Carol Browner oversaw the false rewriting of the drilling-ban report to completely misrepresent the Obama-appointed panel’s own overwhelming scientific objections to the job-killing edict.



Federal judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana blasted the Interior Department for defying his May 2010 order to lift its fraudulent ban on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf. Feldman singled out the Salazar-run agency’s culture of contempt and serial “determined disregard” for the law.
“Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness,” Feldman wrote, Salazar’s doctored report was “misleading” and the experts who wrote it called it a “‘misrepresentation.’ It was factually incorrect.” Once again, Salazar evaded accountability despite continued obstruction and repeated refusal to cooperate with nearly 50 public-records requests from Congress regarding his post–BP spill decisions.
Ken Salazar hates American consumers and workers. He infamously told the Senate in 2008 that he would refuse emergency drilling requests in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge even if gas prices reached $10 a gallon. He arbitrarily pulled nearly 100 oil leases in Utah — costing the state thousands of jobs — based on bogus eco-claims that were refuted by the Interior Department’s own inspector general. Offshore and onshore, Salazar waged war relentlessly on the energy sector and the American West.
Ken Salazar is a job-killing, truth-sabotaging, law-skirting, media-bullying corruptocrat who just won’t let go of power.
In other words: a perfect headhunter for America’s Evita Peron.




MICHELLE MALKIN — Michelle Malkin is the host of Michelle Malkin Investigates on CRTV.com. Her email address is writemalkin@gmail.com. 
Share:

McKesson Agrees to Pay Record $150 Million Settlement for Failure to Report Suspicious Orders of Pharmaceutical Drugs


Contact: DEA Public Affairs
(202) 307-7977

McKesson Agrees to Pay Record $150 Million Settlement for Failure to Report Suspicious Orders of Pharmaceutical Drugs
JAN 17 (WASHINGTON) – McKesson Corporation (McKesson), one of the nation’s largest distributors of pharmaceutical drugs, agreed to pay a record $150 million civil penalty for alleged violations of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced today.
The nationwide settlement requires McKesson to suspend sales of controlled substances from distribution centers in Colorado, Ohio, Michigan and Florida for multiple years. The staged suspensions are among the most severe sanctions ever agreed to by a DEA-registered distributor. The settlement also imposes new and enhanced compliance obligations on McKesson’s distribution system.
In 2008, McKesson agreed to a $13.25 million civil penalty and administrative agreement for similar violations. In this case, the government alleged again that McKesson failed to design and implement an effective system to detect and report “suspicious orders” for controlled substances distributed to its independent and small chain pharmacy customers– i.e. orders that are unusual in their frequency, size, or other patterns. From 2008 until 2013, McKesson supplied various U.S. pharmacies an increasing amount of oxycodone and hydrocodone pills, frequently misused products that are part of the current opioid epidemic.
The government’s investigation developed evidence that even after designing a compliance program after the 2008 settlement, McKesson did not fully implement or adhere to its own program. In Colorado, for example, McKesson processed more than 1.6 million orders for controlled substances from June 2008 through May 2013, but reported just 16 orders as suspicious, all connected to one instance related to a recently terminated customer. 
"This groundbreaking resolution is tough and appropriate and underscores our commitment to hold accountable all DEA registrants, including those who distribute controlled substances," said DEA Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg.  "DEA is committed to fighting the opioid epidemic with all of the tools at our disposal."
In addition to the monetary penalties and suspensions, the government and McKesson agreed to enhanced compliance terms for the next five years. Among other things, McKesson has agreed to specific, rigorous staffing and organizational improvements; periodic auditing; and stipulated financial penalties for failing to adhere to the compliance terms. Critically, the settlement will require McKesson to engage an independent monitor to assess compliance – the first independent monitor of its kind in a CSA civil penalty settlement.
This was a multi-district investigation that involved the following DEA Field Divisions:  Boston Field Division, Chicago Field Division, Denver Field Division, Detroit Field Division, Miami Field Division, New Jersey Field Division, San Francisco Field Division, St. Louis Field Division, and Washington Division Office. The following U.S. Attorneys’ Offices participated in the case: Central District of California, Eastern District of California, District of Colorado, Middle District of Florida, Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern District of Illinois, District of Massachusetts, Eastern District of Michigan, District of Nebraska, District of New Jersey, Northern District of West Virginia, and Western District of Wisconsin.
U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the District of Colorado and the Northern District of West Virginia, along with DEA’s Office of Chief Counsel and its Diversion Control Division, led the civil settlement negotiations.  DEA’s Denver, Detroit and Miami Field Divisions and its Washington Division Office led the administrative and civil investigation. The U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section (NDDS) also coordinated and assisted in negotiating certain portions of the settlement. Assistant United States Attorneys Amanda Rocque (Colorado) and Alan McGonigal (NDWV) represented the United States in the civil penalty investigations and negotiations.  Associate Chief Counsel Lee Reeves and Senior Attorneys Dedra Curteman, Dana Hill and Krista Tongring represented DEA in the investigations and negotiations. Trial Attorneys Harry Matz and Kirtland Marsh were involved for NDDS.
Share:

Visa's use provokes opposition by techies / L-1 regarded as threat to workers

Visa's use provokes opposition by techies / L-1 regarded as threat to workers


Published 4:00 am, Sunday, May 25, 2003


An obscure work visa known as the L-1 has become the center of a bitter controversy in the technology industry.
Much like the H-1B before it -- an equally obscure visa that rose to prominence when American workers complained they were being displaced by its recipients -- the L-1 is catching the ire of tech workers and the eye of government regulators who disagree on whether the visa is being used legally.
In the middle of the spat are Indian firms that undertake tech projects for U.S. companies, including many in the Bay Area, on a contract basis.
The L-1 visa was originally intended for multinational companies that need to transfer key employees to U.S. divisions. But in recent years, outsourcing firms such as Wipro Technologies, InfosysTechnologies and Tata Consultancy Services have stepped up their use of the L-1 visa to bring programmers and other professionals from India to work at the offices of U.S. clients.
In the Bay Area, the firms' clients include Hewlett-Packard, Cisco Systems, Visa International, ChevronTexaco and Sun Microsystems.

Some U.S. tech workers, frustrated by growing unemployment, say the L-1, like the H-1B before it, creates unfair competition and eliminates jobs of American workers. In fact, the workers like the L-1 even less than the H-1B because L-1 lacks the abuse-prevention clauses and annual limit that H-1B has.
A bill introduced by a Florida congressman last week seeks to ban the visa's use in outsourcing.
But the outsourcing companies, multimillion-dollar concerns with thousands of employees in the United States and abroad, say their use of the visa is legal and appropriate.
The companies make no secret of their visa use. Wipro and Infosys, both listed on U.S. stock exchanges, disclose the number of L-1 and H-1B visas they get in financial filings.
U.S. worker groups, including the AFL-CIO's Department for Professional Employees and the Seattle technology union WashTech, say outsourcers are using L-1 to get around what they call the minimal worker protections attached to H- 1B visas.
"We think it's the secret stealth visa," said Marcus Courtney, president of WashTech.
L-1s "seem to be sprouting up all over the Bay Area, and they're totally off the radar screen," said Peter Bennett, a former computer programmer who works as a mortgage broker in Danville. Because he runs a Web site protesting the H-1B visa program (www.nomoreh1b.com), Bennett gets 50 to 500 e-mails a day from tech professionals who are out of work or fear losing their jobs. An increasing number of them complain that L-1 workers have shown up in their offices.
Restrictions that apply to H-1B, but not L-1, include an annual limit on the number of visas issued and a requirement that the visa applicant have a bachelor's degree or higher. H-1B visa applicants have to pay a $1,000 fee toward training American workers; L-1 applicants don't.
Visa law also requires workers with H-1Bs to be paid the prevailing wage in the region where they work, although the Department of Labor does not routinely check up on this.
The L-1 visa carries no salary requirements, theoretically allowing a foreign worker to continue drawing the salary he was paid at home while working side-by-side with or replacing Americans earning two or three times as much.
PROGRAMMERS EARN LESS
Outsourcing firms say they pay their L-1 workers wages comparable to what American workers earn. But Tata acknowledges that when it took over a project at Siemens Information and Communication Networks in Lake Mary, Fla., it paid some programmers only $36,000 a year -- below the average local range of $37, 794 to $69,638 for a basic programmer (determined by Department of Labor surveys) and far below the $98,000 that one U.S. programmer there said she was paid.
Tata spokesman Tom Conway said taxes, Social Security and other withholding bring the salaries up to the average range.
After Tata took over the project, Siemens let a dozen employees go, said spokeswoman Paula Davis.
Some of those employees were outraged that they could be replaced by foreigners. It especially stung that they were asked to train Tata's workers before they left, a procedure that Tata calls knowledge transfer.
"This is what they call outsourcing. I call it insourcing. Import foreign workers, mandate your American workers to train them, then lay off your Americans," said Michael Emmons, who left Siemens last fall just before his job there was to end. Emmons had worked as a contract computer programmer for the company for six years, first in San Jose, then in Florida.
Davis said Emmons and other workers were not directly replaced by foreign workers. "We actually outsourced a function. It wasn't replacing this employee with that employee," she said.
What happened in Florida follows the general pattern of how Indian outsourcing firms use L-1 visas: The Indian firms take over a project, such as software maintenance, at low rates for an American client and send in a team of visa holders to learn the company's procedures. As much of the work as possible is then transferred to the company's headquarters in India, where wages are much lower. But some visa holders continue working at the client's office.
INTERPRETATIONS VARY
Whether this is a legal use of the L-1 visa is a matter of interpretation. An official at the Department of Homeland Security, now responsible for immigration, said this kind of use is fraudulent because the L-1 is designated to let workers move from one office to another within a company -- not from a company to a client.
"If an L-1 comes into the United States to work, they're coming to work for their specific company that petitioned for them, not for another company that they're being contracted out to. That would be a fraudulent use of an L-1 visa, " said Christopher Bentley, spokesman for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, a division of the Department of Homeland Security that replaced Immigration and Naturalization Services. The bureau is assessing the L-1 and other visa programs for fraud, he said.
The companies say they would never risk using the visas if officials had not assured them it is legal. Wipro immigration attorney Terry Helbush said she is puzzled by Homeland Security's statement. "The L-1 visas are all approved by the consulate or by the INS. In our submissions, we're very clear that . . . some of the employees are on site at the client."
Tata also said it complies with visa law. Infosys declined to comment because it is in a quiet period before a financial transaction.
The way the outsourcers see it, they are complying with the law because their employees are ultimately working for them, whether sitting in a cubicle in Silicon Valley or sitting in one in Bangalore.
Tata and Wipro both strive to differentiate themselves from what they call body shoppers, firms that provide nothing more than inexpensive workers for clients.
Wipro Chief Operating Officer Lakshman Badiga said it is precisely because the company has moved from just bringing in workers to running complex global projects that it has increased its use of L-1 visas.
The State Department says the outsourcers are within the law.
"The fact that someone is on the site of (a client) does not make them ineligible for an L-1 as long as . . . the company they actually work for is truly functioning as their employer in terms of how they're paid and who has the right to fire them," said Stuart Patt, spokesman for the State Department's Consular Affairs Bureau.
ATTORNEYS CAN'T AGREE
Not even immigration attorneys who specialize in procuring work visas can agree.
Memphis immigration lawyer Gregory Siskind said, "It's largely inappropriate for companies to be using the L-1 to bring in workers that are being contracted out to other companies. I would be very surprised if it continues for very much longer without a crackdown."
If using L-1s for outsourcing is legal now, it won't be under legislation introduced last week by Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. Calling L-1 "a back door to cheap labor," Mica said his bill would ban L-1 visa holders from being transferred to client companies.
It's not clear whether the legislation would actually ban Wipro, Tata and others from using the visas just as they have been because the companies say the workers are their employees even when they are doing work for clients.
L-1 visas have been used in relative obscurity since 1970. But during the past two years, an increasing number of the visas are going to workers from a single country: India. Thirty-three percent of the 32,416 L-1 visas issued so far in 2003 went to Indians, up from 20 percent in 2001.
At Wipro and Infosys, L-1 visa use rose considerably during the same time. Wipro, for example, had 624 H-1B employees in 2000 but only 289 L-1 workers. Since then, its L-1 count has soared to 1,157, while the number of H-1B employees has increased to 705.
The limit on that other contentious tech visa, the H-1B, is scheduled to go from 195,000 to 65,000 in the fall unless Congress intervenes. Worker groups are gearing up to fight industry lobbyists to make sure the limit is lowered.
Some say the L-1 visa could make the H-1B limit irrelevant.
"If the H-1B becomes more difficult to get, (companies) will just adapt and go to L-1s," said Ron Hira, a volunteer on workforce policy issues at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-USA. Hira is also a Columbia Universityresearcher on science and technology policy.

Share:

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

More Links

No one has ever become poor by giving, Please Donate

Labels

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Unordered List

  • Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
  • Aliquam tincidunt mauris eu risus.
  • Vestibulum auctor dapibus neque.

Theme Support

Need our help to upload or customize this blogger template? Contact me with details about the theme customization you need.