Breaking Up Is Still So Hard to Do: DOL Clarifies H-1B Bona Fide Termination Rule

26 January 2015 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Employers must navigate through a maze of complex regulations when seeking H-1B temporary authorization to hire foreign nationals in specialty occupations. Yet, as hard as it is to hire H-1B employees, it can be even more difficult and costly to fire those employees unless special procedures are followed. For years the United States Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division has aggressively investigated and sought to punish employers who are unaware that their normal termination procedures are insufficient in H-1B cases. However, a recent agency decision taps the brakes on employer liability arising from imperfect H-1B terminations in some circumstances.

Earlier we explained that the DOL requires the H-1B employer to take three steps in order to complete a “bona fide termination”:

(1) Clearly inform the H-1B employee that he is terminated

(2) Promptly notify the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of the termination

(3) Promptly offer to pay the reasonable transportation costs for the terminated H-1B employee to return to his last foreign address

Without a bona fide termination, the employer’s obligation to pay the former H-1B employee’s wages may continue through the date on which the employer’s H-1B approval expires (possibly years). The back wages combined with the interest and fines that the DOL may assess can total thousands of dollars.

Notice to DHS (step 2 above) is particularly important because it triggers revocation of the employer’s H-1B petition approval. When the employer fails to notify DHS, the DOL has found that the H-1B termination is invalid and has assessed broad liability — that is until the DOL’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) issued a recent decision  determining that a bona fide termination of H-1B employment may occur without a specific notice to DHS if:

  • The former employer expressly notifies the H-1B employee that he is terminated; and
  • Following that “unequivocal termination,” DHS approves a new employer’s H-1B petition to employ the same foreign national

These circumstances indirectly place the termination by the previous H-1B employer before DHS.

In this recent H-1B termination case, a financial services company became the H-1B employer of a foreign national when it acquired another company in September 2008 as the recession was beginning. Shortly thereafter, the employer implemented layoffs and terminated the individual’s employment. The employer did not notify DHS of the termination and did not offer to pay the transportation costs for the employee to return to his home country. The employer thus failed to complete two of the three steps that the DOL requires for an H-1B bona fide termination.

After the foreign national left the financial services company, he sought employment with another American company. In January 2009, DHS granted H-1B authorization to that other company to employ him. Several months later, the employee filed a complaint with the DOL against his earlier employer seeking back wages and other remedies. Upon learning of the complaint, the financial services company notified DHS that it had terminated the individual’s employment. The original employer also sent him a check to pay the return transportation costs to his home country. These efforts came too late however. The DOL found that the company did not complete an H-1B bona fide termination and assessed back wages for an extended period.

Upon review, the ARB focused on two key facts and reached a different conclusion.

First, the financial services employer “unequivocally terminated” the H-1B employee in 2008 by clearly informing him that his employment was ending on a specific date.

Second, in January 2009, DHS authorized another American company to hire him in H-1B status.

Under these circumstances, the ARB determined that the financial services employer completed a bona fide termination in January 2009, and that liability for the H-1B wages was cutoff at that time. The ARB stated that “back wage claims against a former employer must stop accruing if it is clear that the H-1B employee changes from one H-1B employer to another and [DHS] approves the subsequent H-1B petition allowing for the change.”

Best Practice

The ARB’s recent decision is good news for H-1B employers, but the decision is not so broad as to provide a blanket exemption from the DHS notice requirement (step 2). To limit the risk of liability in H-1B cases, the best practice is to complete the three steps for a bona fide termination: a clear notice to the H-1B employee; a prompt notice to DHS; and a prompt offer to pay the reasonable transportation costs for the terminated employee to return to his foreign home.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Telehealth: Medicare Finalizes New Services for 2020 in Physician Fee Schedule
11 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
Longstanding EB-5 Visa Program Undergoes Significant Changes
11 November 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
State Data Breach Notification Laws
11 November 2019
DOJ Announces Procurement Collusion Strike Force
08 November 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
Fall NAIC Meeting Reception
07 December 2019
Austin, TX