Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 MARCH 2015

A Blurry Line On Employment Discrimination Protection

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Contributor
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz is a litigation powerhouse and business accelerator serving leaders in life sciences, private...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

In a novel case, a New York federal court judge recently denied an employer’s motion to dismiss a Section 1981 alienage discrimination class action.

United StatesEmployment and HR

In a novel case, a New York federal court judge recently denied an employer's motion to dismiss a Section 1981 alienage discrimination class action. The lawsuit alleges that Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company violated that act by implementing a policy of hiring only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Background

In Juarez v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., the plaintiff, Ruben Juarez, a Mexican national living in New York City was a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") employment authorized individual. Through DACA, President Obama in 2012 authorized the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to exercise discretion in granting deferred action to qualified immigrant youth and authorize them to remain in the U.S., obtain an employment authorization document (EAD), and obtain a social security number. The EAD authorizes the holder to work for any employer, has a two-year validity period, and is renewable. In other words, it makes an

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from