Monster.com Post Snarls Company in Hiring Dispute With Labor Department
Complaint: "Without authorization from plaintiff, Monster.com inserted a default wage range of $0.00 to $1.00 per hour."
October 09, 2017 at 02:07 PM
3 minute read
A multinational software company is suing the U.S. Department of Labor for refusing to allow the firm to hire a foreign worker, in a dispute that features as its centerpiece a job posting on Monster.com that put the salary of the position at less than $1.00.
Chesterfield, Missouri-based Amdocs Inc. filed a lawsuit last week against the Labor Department in Washington's federal trial court for the agency's refusal to approve a “labor certification application.” That certification allows a company to hire a foreign worker to work permanently in the United States.
The company filed for the certification in 2011 to hire a “development group leader.” Part of the process required the company to show the job would be available to any would-be U.S. worker and so it posted the job on Monster.com, the third-party job recruiting website.
In that posting, the salary was listed for under or between “$0.00 and $1.00.” Because of that salary level, labor regulators rejected the certification application from Amdocs. Amdocs said that the salary in the labor certification application itself was identified at between $77,834 and $87,000.
Amdocs, represented by New York's Barst Mukamal & Kleiner, alleged the salary range in the Monster.com job posting was a placeholder and that no reasonable person would believe the compensation would be that low. The company's lawyers claimed that nobody from Amdocs asked for the salary to be placed that low on Monster.com.
An administrative law judge panel in June, six years after the original application was filed, agreed with the denial of the certification because of the low salary listing. The panel, pointing to a decision by a Labor Department certification officer, wrote: “[R]egardless of how the error occurred, the employer was ultimately responsible for ensuring the content of its recruitment complied with all the regulatory standards.”
The labor panel said the DOL's Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals has held that “even slight misrepresentations as to the salary of a position” can violate U.S. labor regulations.
“Moreover, though it is unclear what precise effect the misreported wages had on recruitment, we are unwilling to accept the employer's contention that the misrepresentation had no effect,” the labor panel said in its ruling.
Amdocs calls the decision in the lawsuit to deny the certification “arbitrary and capricious.”
“Without authorization from plaintiff, Monster.com inserted a default wage range of $0.00 to $1.00 per hour into that published job posting content. Defendant's denial of Amdocs' labor certification application results from Monster's unauthorized default wage range,” according to the lawsuit.
It goes on to say: “Plaintiff did not confirm salary information with or otherwise provide such information to Monster.com or any intermediary when arranging to place the job posting. When published on the internet, Monster.com, without authorization, published a salary range of $0.00 to $1.00 in the job description content visible to the public.The $0.00 to $1.00 per hour was a default wage entry made unilaterally by a Monster.com administrator.”
The lawsuit asks a Washington judge to overturn the Labor Department's determination that Amdocs' recruitment effort violated U.S. regulations, and the company said it wants its labor certification application granted.
Erin Mulvaney can be contacted at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNelson Mullins, Greenberg Traurig, Jones Day Have Established Themselves As Biggest Outsiders in Atlanta Legal Market
7 minute readLegal Recruiter Amy Savage Joins Garrison as Lateral Gov't Moves Stay Busy
6 minute readConsumer Finance Law Enforcer Takes Private Practice Job at Morgan Lewis
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250