By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law

Homeland Security.png

In Caltzoncin v. GSM Insurors-Glass, Sorenson & McDavid, 12 OCAHO no. 1287 (2016), the Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) reiterated the longstanding requirement to prove citizenship status – one must be a citizen or national of the United States, permanent resident, refugee, or asylee in order to be a protected individual.

In this case, Mr. Caltzoncin filed a complaint against his employer alleging he was fired on the basis of his citizenship status and national origin discrimination. In Mr. Caltzoncin’s complaint, he conceded that he only had an employment authorization document (EAD) and was not a citizen, permanent resident, asylee or refugee. Under 8 U.S.C. § 13246(a)(3), an individual with an EAD is not protected by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). Thus, OCAHO dismissed Mr. Caltzoncin’s complaint.

Concerning the national origin claim, Mr. Caltzoncin conceded that his former employer employed 15 or more employees. Again, under the law, concerning a national origin claim, an employer with 15 or more employees is not covered by IRCA; rather, the employer is covered by Title VII. Thus, Mr. Caltzoncin’s claim should have been directed to the EEOC, not the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration – Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC). Thus, OCAHO also dismissed this claim.