AAAA Note: This OFCCP Directive Eliminates Five Forms from the List of Acceptable Documents:
Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (Forms N-560 or N-561)
Certificate of Naturalization (Forms N-550 or N-570)
Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form I-151)
Unexpired Reentry Permit (Form I-327)
Unexpired Refugee Travel Document (Form I-571)
Transmittal Number: 284
DATE: September 5, 2008
OFCCP ORDER NO.: ADM Notice/Other
SUBJECT: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS), revised Employment Eligibility Verification Form (Form I-9).
PURPOSE: To transmit the revised Form I-9 and the procedures for inspection of the Form I-9 while conducting the onsite phase of a compliance evaluation.
FILING INSTRUCTIONS:
Holders of ADM and LEG Binders only: File this Notice with the attachment behind the "Other" tab in your Administrative Practices Binder.
District and Area Office EOSs and EOAs only:
File this Notice with the attachment behind the tab for ADM Directives in your FCCM Binder.
OBSOLETE DATA: None.
DISTRIBUTION: A, B (both hard copy and electronically); C (hard copy only).
EXPIRATION DATE:This directive remains in effect until superseded.
(Signed)
CHARLES E. JAMES, SR.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Federal Contract Compliance
September-5-2008
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS
WASHINGTON, DC 20210
ADM NOTICE/OTHER
SUBJECT: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS), revised Employment Eligibility Verification Form (Form I-9).
PURPOSE: To transmit the revised Form I-9 and the procedures for inspection of the Form I-9 when conducting the onsite phase of a compliance evaluation.
BACKGROUND: The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) and supporting regulations require all U.S. employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of all individuals hired to work in the United States and to complete and retain a Form I-9 for each employee. Employers are required to authenticate the identity of each new hire by reviewing a government-issued photographic document from "List B," such as a driver's license. In addition, employers are required to establish each new hire's employment eligibility by reviewing documents on "List C," such as a social security card or birth certificate. Alternatively, employers may establish both an individual's identity and employment eligibility if presented with a document from "List A," such as a U.S. passport or permanent resident card.
In accordance with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), P.L. 104-208, USCIS has revised the Form I-9. The most significant change to the Form I-9 is a reduction in the number acceptable documents on List A, documents which establish both identity and employment eligibility. Employers are required to use the revised Form I-9, labeled "(Rev. 06/05/07)N," for all individuals hired on or after November 7, 2007.(1)
Under the longstanding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now USCIS) and the Employment Standards Administration (ESA), Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is authorized to inspect the Form I-9 of federal contractors or subcontractors whenever an onsite review is performed during a compliance evaluation. To avoid discouraging unauthorized workers from reporting alleged discrimination, the MOU specifies that Form I-9 inspections will not take place in the course of any complaint investigation. The MOU may be found at: http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/emprights/MOU.pdf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/According to USCIS, the period between Nov. 7 and Dec. 26, 2007 was a grace period, with no enforcement of the new form or the changes.
On June 9, 2008, Executive Order (E.O.) 12989 was amended to require, as a condition of future contracts, that federal contractors use an electronic verification system to confirm the employment eligibility of new hires and existing personnel assigned to perform work on the new federal contract.(2) DHS is authorized to issue implementing regulations for E.O. 12989, but has not yet done so. Once implementing regulations are issued, this Directive may be revised to reflect any necessary changes to OFCCP's Form I-9 inspection procedures.
POLICY: Effective immediately, all Form I-9 inspections performed onsite review will adhere to the procedures outlined in this directive.
FORM I-9 (Rev. 06/05/07)N: On November 7, 2007, the Form I-9 with a revision date of June 5, 2007 became the only version of the form valid for current or future use.(3) The revision date is printed on the lower right-hand corner of the form and states "(Rev. 06/05/07)N." The new Handbook for Employers - Instructions for Completing the Revised Form I-9 is available at http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/m-274.pdf.
The most significant change to the revised Form I-9 is the elimination of five documents from "List A" of the "Lists of Acceptable Documents." List A specifies the documents that can be used to establish both identity and employment eligibility. The five documents that have been eliminated are:
Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (Forms N-560 or N-561)
Certificate of Naturalization (Forms N-550 or N-570)
Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form I-151)
Unexpired Reentry Permit (Form I-327)
Unexpired Refugee Travel Document (Form I-571)
http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/directives/dir284.htm
Monday, October 6, 2008
EEOC EXTENDS EEO-1 FILING DEADLINE TO OCTOBER 15
EEO-1 Report
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
DUE TO PERIODIC PROBLEMS WITH THE SERVER THAT HOSTS THE EEO-1 ONLINE FILING APPLICATION, WE HAVE EXTENDED THE 2008 EEO-1 FILING DEADLINE FROM SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 TO OCTOBER 15, 2008.
The EEO-1 Report, otherwise known as The Employer Information Report, is submitted to the EEOC and the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. The filing deadline for the 2008 EEO-1 Survey has been extended from September 30, 2008 to October 15, 2008.
http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/surveys.html
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
DUE TO PERIODIC PROBLEMS WITH THE SERVER THAT HOSTS THE EEO-1 ONLINE FILING APPLICATION, WE HAVE EXTENDED THE 2008 EEO-1 FILING DEADLINE FROM SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 TO OCTOBER 15, 2008.
The EEO-1 Report, otherwise known as The Employer Information Report, is submitted to the EEOC and the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. The filing deadline for the 2008 EEO-1 Survey has been extended from September 30, 2008 to October 15, 2008.
http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/surveys.html
Making a Case for Diversity in STEM Fields
Inside Higher Ed
By Daryl E. Chubin and Shirley M. Malcom
October 6, 2008
When we were in college some 40 years ago, neither of us ever had an African-American or Latino professor. Unfortunately, even today many students at major American research universities have the same experience. Departments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics — the STEM fields — are typically the least diverse. Not only is that situation dismaying for those of us who lived through the civil rights movement, but it is also a big policy problem for our country.
At a time when STEM fields are increasingly important to our national security, health, and competitiveness we are neither supporting the research nor producing the diverse pool of scientists and engineers we need to fuel our future.
Programs to broaden the pool of STEM students are being scrutinized, and some have been eliminated. Beyond the obvious logic of numbers — the more people in a field, the more likely it is that talented practitioners will appear — research suggests that a diversity of perspectives enriches science and makes engineering more responsive to a global pool of clients. For example, Anthony Lising Antonio, et al. reported on a study of college-student discussion groups in an August 2004 issue of Psychological Science. According to the research, students working in a more diverse group setting were influenced by the different perspectives of minority participants and demonstrated enhanced complex thought processes as a result.
This is especially relevant in the STEM fields, where students are often required to work collaboratively and where thinking about a problem in new and different ways is central to developing solutions. In a friend-of-the-court brief pertaining to the Supreme Court cases on affirmative action at the University of Michigan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, DuPont, IBM, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering submitted an argument documenting that “the importance of diversity is heightened in the fields of science and engineering.”
As an engine of our economy, the STEM disciplines and the diversity of that workforce should give us great pause. Although only 5 percent of American workers were employed in STEM occupations as of 2006, their impact on the national and global economies is disproportionately large.
In both academe and the workforce, those fields look the least like America, with much smaller proportions of women, African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinos. Although the overall student population has become more diverse, at the undergraduate level members of these minority groups are underrepresented among all STEM majors, with women underrepresented in many STEM fields. At the graduate level, there is an additional problem: a declining percentage of U.S. citizens. In many departments of physics, computer science, and engineering, it is difficult to find a graduate student who is a U.S. citizen. Across the STEM fields, the situation for faculty members is even more dire.
To achieve better representation in our colleges’ STEM departments, we must deal with three issues.
First, we must clearly articulate the educational case for diversity, showing how students and society benefit from it. After that, we can determine how best to reach diversity: What policies should be altered, what practices endorsed, what structural changes made, and what resources committed? In biomedical research, for instance, we must not assume that whites and males are typical of all patients and develop treatments only for them; when scientists who are not white males are present, that assumption is more likely to be challenged.
Second, we need to think more holistically about diversity in STEM, including the need for everyone on our campuses — undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty and staff members — to be exposed to diverse ideas and worldviews. For example, in the high-tech industry, the composition of work teams now mirrors the consumer market for company products. No such practices pervade STEM units on campus, although research in many areas ultimately impacts consumers, and many students and faculty will someday operate in the private sector. To reach this goal, we may need to re-examine functions like admissions, financial aid, and faculty recruitment and advancement. What are the criteria by which decisions are made in each case? By reassigning accountability for those functions to a central office, promising and creative practices can be shared throughout the institution, with rewards for STEM units that are diversifying. A campus-wide repository of data, as well as college-specific tools, for monitoring and managing levels of diversity, is essential. Innovative examples can be found in many universities — Harvard University on faculty searches, the University of California at Berkeley on undergraduate support, Georgia Tech on promotion and tenure — which honor excellence while seeking to diversify participation in STEM education and careers. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/10/06/chubin ]
By Daryl E. Chubin and Shirley M. Malcom
October 6, 2008
When we were in college some 40 years ago, neither of us ever had an African-American or Latino professor. Unfortunately, even today many students at major American research universities have the same experience. Departments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics — the STEM fields — are typically the least diverse. Not only is that situation dismaying for those of us who lived through the civil rights movement, but it is also a big policy problem for our country.
At a time when STEM fields are increasingly important to our national security, health, and competitiveness we are neither supporting the research nor producing the diverse pool of scientists and engineers we need to fuel our future.
Programs to broaden the pool of STEM students are being scrutinized, and some have been eliminated. Beyond the obvious logic of numbers — the more people in a field, the more likely it is that talented practitioners will appear — research suggests that a diversity of perspectives enriches science and makes engineering more responsive to a global pool of clients. For example, Anthony Lising Antonio, et al. reported on a study of college-student discussion groups in an August 2004 issue of Psychological Science. According to the research, students working in a more diverse group setting were influenced by the different perspectives of minority participants and demonstrated enhanced complex thought processes as a result.
This is especially relevant in the STEM fields, where students are often required to work collaboratively and where thinking about a problem in new and different ways is central to developing solutions. In a friend-of-the-court brief pertaining to the Supreme Court cases on affirmative action at the University of Michigan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, DuPont, IBM, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering submitted an argument documenting that “the importance of diversity is heightened in the fields of science and engineering.”
As an engine of our economy, the STEM disciplines and the diversity of that workforce should give us great pause. Although only 5 percent of American workers were employed in STEM occupations as of 2006, their impact on the national and global economies is disproportionately large.
In both academe and the workforce, those fields look the least like America, with much smaller proportions of women, African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinos. Although the overall student population has become more diverse, at the undergraduate level members of these minority groups are underrepresented among all STEM majors, with women underrepresented in many STEM fields. At the graduate level, there is an additional problem: a declining percentage of U.S. citizens. In many departments of physics, computer science, and engineering, it is difficult to find a graduate student who is a U.S. citizen. Across the STEM fields, the situation for faculty members is even more dire.
To achieve better representation in our colleges’ STEM departments, we must deal with three issues.
First, we must clearly articulate the educational case for diversity, showing how students and society benefit from it. After that, we can determine how best to reach diversity: What policies should be altered, what practices endorsed, what structural changes made, and what resources committed? In biomedical research, for instance, we must not assume that whites and males are typical of all patients and develop treatments only for them; when scientists who are not white males are present, that assumption is more likely to be challenged.
Second, we need to think more holistically about diversity in STEM, including the need for everyone on our campuses — undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty and staff members — to be exposed to diverse ideas and worldviews. For example, in the high-tech industry, the composition of work teams now mirrors the consumer market for company products. No such practices pervade STEM units on campus, although research in many areas ultimately impacts consumers, and many students and faculty will someday operate in the private sector. To reach this goal, we may need to re-examine functions like admissions, financial aid, and faculty recruitment and advancement. What are the criteria by which decisions are made in each case? By reassigning accountability for those functions to a central office, promising and creative practices can be shared throughout the institution, with rewards for STEM units that are diversifying. A campus-wide repository of data, as well as college-specific tools, for monitoring and managing levels of diversity, is essential. Innovative examples can be found in many universities — Harvard University on faculty searches, the University of California at Berkeley on undergraduate support, Georgia Tech on promotion and tenure — which honor excellence while seeking to diversify participation in STEM education and careers. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/10/06/chubin ]
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Racism Without Racists
The New York Times
October 5, 2008
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
One of the fallacies this election season is that if Barack Obama is paying an electoral price for his skin tone, it must be because of racists.
On the contrary, the evidence is that Senator Obama is facing what scholars have dubbed “racism without racists.”
The racism is difficult to measure, but a careful survey completed last month by Stanford University, with The Associated Press and Yahoo, suggested that Mr. Obama’s support would be about six percentage points higher if he were white. That’s significant but surmountable.
Most of the lost votes aren’t those of dyed-in-the-wool racists. Such racists account for perhaps 10 percent of the electorate and, polling suggests, are mostly conservatives who would not vote for any Democratic presidential candidate.
Rather, most of the votes that Mr. Obama actually loses belong to well-meaning whites who believe in racial equality and have no objection to electing a black person as president — yet who discriminate unconsciously.
“When we fixate on the racist individual, we’re focused on the least interesting way that race works,” said Phillip Goff, a social psychologist at U.C.L.A. who focuses his research on “racism without racists.” “Most of the way race functions is without the need for racial animus.”
For decades, experiments have shown that even many whites who earnestly believe in equal rights will recommend hiring a white job candidate more often than a person with identical credentials who is black. In the experiments, the applicant’s folder sometimes presents the person as white, sometimes as black, but everything else is the same. The white person thinks that he or she is selecting on the basis of nonracial factors like experience.
Research suggests that whites are particularly likely to discriminate against blacks when choices are not clear-cut and competing arguments are flying about — in other words, in ambiguous circumstances rather like an electoral campaign.
For example, when the black job candidate is highly qualified, there is no discrimination. Yet in a more muddled gray area where reasonable people could disagree, unconscious discrimination plays a major role.
White participants recommend hiring a white applicant with borderline qualifications 76 percent of the time, while recommending an identically qualified black applicant only 45 percent of the time.[To read the entire story, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin ]
October 5, 2008
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
One of the fallacies this election season is that if Barack Obama is paying an electoral price for his skin tone, it must be because of racists.
On the contrary, the evidence is that Senator Obama is facing what scholars have dubbed “racism without racists.”
The racism is difficult to measure, but a careful survey completed last month by Stanford University, with The Associated Press and Yahoo, suggested that Mr. Obama’s support would be about six percentage points higher if he were white. That’s significant but surmountable.
Most of the lost votes aren’t those of dyed-in-the-wool racists. Such racists account for perhaps 10 percent of the electorate and, polling suggests, are mostly conservatives who would not vote for any Democratic presidential candidate.
Rather, most of the votes that Mr. Obama actually loses belong to well-meaning whites who believe in racial equality and have no objection to electing a black person as president — yet who discriminate unconsciously.
“When we fixate on the racist individual, we’re focused on the least interesting way that race works,” said Phillip Goff, a social psychologist at U.C.L.A. who focuses his research on “racism without racists.” “Most of the way race functions is without the need for racial animus.”
For decades, experiments have shown that even many whites who earnestly believe in equal rights will recommend hiring a white job candidate more often than a person with identical credentials who is black. In the experiments, the applicant’s folder sometimes presents the person as white, sometimes as black, but everything else is the same. The white person thinks that he or she is selecting on the basis of nonracial factors like experience.
Research suggests that whites are particularly likely to discriminate against blacks when choices are not clear-cut and competing arguments are flying about — in other words, in ambiguous circumstances rather like an electoral campaign.
For example, when the black job candidate is highly qualified, there is no discrimination. Yet in a more muddled gray area where reasonable people could disagree, unconscious discrimination plays a major role.
White participants recommend hiring a white applicant with borderline qualifications 76 percent of the time, while recommending an identically qualified black applicant only 45 percent of the time.[To read the entire story, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin ]
Thursday, October 2, 2008
EEOC suing Lafayette College over former officer's alleged misconduct
lehighvalleylive.com
by Precious Petty
Tuesday September 30, 2008, 5:33 PM
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Lafayette College over the behavior of an ex-employee who is accused of sexually harassing and sexually assaulting female colleagues.
In a suit filed today, the commission claims the Easton school's former loss prevention officer, Barry Stauffer, targeted five women who worked for him. His misconduct included grabbing the women's breasts and buttocks, forcibly kissing them, making lewd comments or gestures and using college computers to view or e-mail pornographic material, the commission says.
Lafayette officials knew about Stauffer's behavior, but did not take immediate action to stop it, the commission says. [To read the entire story, go tohttp://www.lehighvalleylive.com/easton/index.ssf/2008/09/eeoc_suing_lafayette_college_o.html ]
by Precious Petty
Tuesday September 30, 2008, 5:33 PM
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Lafayette College over the behavior of an ex-employee who is accused of sexually harassing and sexually assaulting female colleagues.
In a suit filed today, the commission claims the Easton school's former loss prevention officer, Barry Stauffer, targeted five women who worked for him. His misconduct included grabbing the women's breasts and buttocks, forcibly kissing them, making lewd comments or gestures and using college computers to view or e-mail pornographic material, the commission says.
Lafayette officials knew about Stauffer's behavior, but did not take immediate action to stop it, the commission says. [To read the entire story, go tohttp://www.lehighvalleylive.com/easton/index.ssf/2008/09/eeoc_suing_lafayette_college_o.html ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)