The US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against SpaceX on Thursday for allegedly refusing to contemplate hiring asylum seekers and refugees. According to a DOJ assertion, Elon Musk’s rocket and satellite tv for pc firm “routinely discouraged” candidates due to their citizenship standing from a minimum of September 2018 to May 2022, thus violating the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The DOJ argues SpaceX, in a number of job postings and public statements, “wrongly claimed” that federal “export control law” laws compelled the corporate to solely rent US residents and inexperienced card holders. The allegedly willful misinterpretation of the regulation was repeatedly and publicly echoed by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. In June 2020, for instance, Musk posted to X (previously Twitter) that “U.S. law requires at least a green card to be hired at SpaceX, as rockets are advanced weapons technology.”
But because the DOJ’s announcement notes, the roles in query weren’t solely superior engineering and tech roles, however a “variety of other positions, including welders, cooks, crane operators, baristas, software engineers, marketing professionals, and more.” According to the DOJ, SpaceX falsely claimed to be legally prohibited from hiring refugees in a complete of 14 job postings, public bulletins, and different on-line recruiting communications.
According to the INA, employers can not discriminate against hiring asylees or refugees until a particular government order, authorities contract, regulation, or different federal regulation prevents them. “In this instance no [such situation] required or permitted SpaceX to engage in the widespread discrimination,” argues DOJ representatives.
[Related: SpaceX’s Starship launch caused a ‘mini earthquake’ and left a giant mess.]
Musk, nonetheless, has already doubled down on his and fellow staff’ earlier assertions by way of an August 24 post to X, claiming SpaceX was “told repeatedly” that hiring non-permanent US residents would violate worldwide arms trafficking legal guidelines. “This is yet another case of weaponization of the DOJ for political purposes,” added Musk, who bought the social media platform previously referred to as Twitter in October 2022. Lawyers like Rebecca Bernhard, a accomplice at Dorsey & Whitney specializing in employment-related points involving work visas and immigration challenges, doubt the validity of Musk’s protection.
“While it is lawful for an employer to refuse to provide employer-sponsorship to a potential employee (for example, by not sponsoring the individual for an H-1B), it is not lawful to require that the employee be a US citizen,” she explains by way of e mail. Bernhard argues that whereas, “There are other classes of immigrants who have work authorization in the US and do not need employer sponsorship… To require someone be a US citizen would discriminate against these individuals.”
One potential exception, nonetheless, are employers topic to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Bernhard notes that, “it appears the DOJ is claiming SpaceX fraudulently relied on this exception.”
“While I cannot comment on whether SpaceX is subject to ITAR or EAR, I can state that the DOJ takes the anti-discrimination provisions of the INA very seriously, aggressively enforces them, and interprets the ITAR and EAR exceptions very narrowly,” provides Bernhard.
The DOJ submitting seeks honest consideration and again pay for these affected by the alleged discriminatory practices.