Apple Fined $25M for Hiring Discrimination Against US Citizens, PR

One key aspect was the company's decision not to advertise positions via the PERM program on its external job website. By doing so, Apple limited the visibility of these job opportunities primarily to foreign nationals benefiting from the PERM program, placing U.S. candidates at a disadvantage.

Introduction:

In a significant development, Apple has agreed to a substantial settlement of up to $25 million to resolve allegations of discriminatory hiring practices brought forth by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The case, initiated in 2019 during the Trump administration, focuses on Apple’s purported preferential treatment of foreign nationals. These candidates are seeking green cards over U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

This blog post delves deeper into the intricate details of the investigation and its implications on Apple’s recruitment practices.

Join Our WhatsApp News

Background of Apple Hiring Discrimination:

The crux of the matter lies in Apple’s alleged engagement in a “pattern or practice of citizenship status discrimination in recruitment for positions it hired through the permanent labor certification program (PERM).”

The PERM program, administered by the U.S. government, allows employers like Apple to sponsor foreign national workers for green cards.

The investigation by the DOJ, scrutinized Apple’s hiring processes and revealed a systematic bias against U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

Read More: 8 Major Trends in Semiconductor Manufacturing in 2024

Apple hiring Discrimination Practices:

The DOJ’s findings shed light on several discriminatory practices employed by Apple. One key aspect was the company’s decision not to advertise positions via the PERM program on its external job website.

By doing so, Apple limited the visibility of these job opportunities primarily to foreign nationals benefiting from the PERM program. This placed U.S. candidates at a disadvantage.

Furthermore, Apple’s requirement for paper applications instead of electronic submissions created an additional hurdle. This resulted in fewer applications from individuals whose work authorization does not expire, such as U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

Read More: Explained: What the hell is 3D IC packaging?

Impact on Applicants:

The consequences of Apple’s discriminatory practices were far-reaching, affecting U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, lawful permanent residents, and individuals granted asylum or refugee status.

By limiting the exposure of job opportunities to a specific pool of applicants, Apple’s actions hindered the chances of qualified individuals from diverse backgrounds. This undermines the principles of equal opportunity employment.

Read More: Apple Q3 Revenue Decline Continues, Longest Streak Since Dot-com Bubble

DOJ Findings and Settlement:

The DOJ found Apple’s recruitment practices discriminatory and prejudicial to a wide range of eligible candidates.

The $25 M settlement is the largest ever under anti-discrimination provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Ac.

It functions as both a financial penalty for Apple and a warning to other companies. It also emphasizes the significance of complying with anti-discrimination laws in their hiring procedures.

Read More: What are the Top 5 Companies in Smartphone as per Q3 2023?

Apple’s Response:

In response to the settlement, Apple maintained its commitment to the U.S. workforce, highlighting its employment of over 90,000 people in the country and continued national investment.

However, the company stopped short of admitting wrongdoing, emphasizing that the settlement resolves the allegations without a court ruling on the merits of the case.

This nuanced stance raises questions about the extent of Apple’s acknowledgment of its practices and the potential impact on its future hiring policies.

Read More: iPhone 15 Sales in China Fall 6%! Apple Loses Ground to Huawei

Conclusion:

Settlement between Apple and the DOJ serves as a critical reminder that even tech giants are not immune to scrutiny.

As the case highlights the significance of fair and non-discriminatory employment, it prompts a broader conversation about the responsibility of industry leaders in fostering diversity and equal opportunities.

Beyond the financial implications, this settlement underscores the need for companies to reevaluate and rectify any discriminatory practices to ensure a more inclusive and equitable job market for all.

Editorial Team
Editorial Team
Articles: 1781