The Real Cost of H-1B Wage Requirements
An overview of the existing wage-related employer obligations in the context of H-1B visa sponsorship. Does the existing framework sufficiently protect the wages of U.S. workers?
September 25, 2017 at 01:30 PM
9 minute read
For decades, immigration has been at the forefront of political debate. Central to that debate has been the question of whether foreign workers depress the wages of Americans. Most recently, the election of President Trump and his commitment to securing our borders and protecting U.S. workers have amplified the debate around the H-1B visa, a popular guest worker program that enables U.S. employers to sponsor highly-skilled foreign professionals for difficult-to-fill positions (usually in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields).
On April 18, Trump signed the “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order which, among other things, directed a reform of the H-1B program, “to help ensure that H-1B visas are awarded to the most skilled or highest paid petition beneficiaries,” purporting to “create higher wages and employment rates for workers in the United States” (Exec. Order No. 13788, 82 Fed. Reg. 18837 (Apr. 21, 2017)). This article provides an overview of the existing wage-related employer obligations in the context of H-1B visa sponsorship and examines whether the existing framework sufficiently protects the wages of U.S. workers. It will not, however, examine legal requirements pertaining to Willful Violators or H-1B Dependent Employers.
Section 214.2(h) of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sets forth the regulatory framework for H-1B sponsorship. (Its regulations do not contain any wage-related provisions with the exception of Subpart (2)(F)(1), providing that an agent performing the function of an employer must guarantee wages and other terms and conditions of employment by contractual agreement with the beneficiary of the petition. In addition to the rules set forth in Title 8, the petitioning employer must also navigate the Department of Labor regulations in CFR Title 20.) As set forth in these rules, in order to sponsor a foreign worker for an H-1B visa, the petitioning U.S. employer must first obtain a certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) that the employer has filed a labor condition application in the occupational specialty in which the foreign worker will be employed (8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(B)(1)). The Labor Condition Application (LCA) is an electronic application filed by the petitioning employer or the employer's authorized agent or representative, containing information regarding the nature of the position for which the foreign worker is being sponsored, as well as a number of important attestations. Among other things, the petitioning employer must attest under penalty of perjury that the employer will pay the H-1B worker the “required wage rate” (20 CFR 655.731). The required wage rate means the rate of pay which is the higher of (1) the actual wage for the specific employment in question or (2) the prevailing wage rate (20 CFR 655.715). The petitioning employer is then required to maintain detailed documentation in the form of a Public Access File showing compliance with the wage requirements (20 CFR 655.760(a) and (a)(1)).
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
© 2025 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 AllEEOC Nominees Are Questioned About Workplace Sexual-Orientation Discrimination
4 minute readCorporate Friend or Balanced Perspective? EEOC Chair Nominee's Experience Is Debated
22 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
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