Our law firm filed this lawsuit on behalf of our client, Aisha Putnam, the former Associate Director of Research promoted to Director of Research and Development for Garrett, who provided her services for five years. The lawsuit alleges that the famous popcorn merchant routinely engaged in a myriad of food safety violations that endangered the health and safety of customers and public at large. The claimed violations include using unrefrigerated butter for popcorn transported in 80 to 90 degree temperatures and served to O'Hare Airport customers, altering expiration dates to sell expired and returned products back to customers, repackaging and reselling returned products from vendors, making popcorn in various highly unsanitary conditions including rodent and cockroach infestation, water leaking into products, and mold. Her lawsuit further alleges that when she and other employees complained about and resisted these egregious food safety violations to protect customers and consumers at large, she was harassed, slandered, and terminated in retaliation along with her coworkers who also complained about these unsafe and unhealthy practices.

On August 9, 2024, Governor Pritzker signed into law SB3310, amending the statute of limitations for filing charges with the Illinois Department of Human Rights. Under the current version of the Illinois Human Rights Act, claims based upon employment discrimination, harassment or retaliation must be brought within 300 calendar days of the last alleged unlawful action. The amendment, which goes into effect on January 1, 2025, extends the filing period to two years after the date the last alleged discrimination occurred. Importantly, any equivalent claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must still be filed within 300 calendar days after the last discriminatory act occurs.

Due to a number of hardships in their personal life, this Anesthesiologist found that finishing their three-year requirement in their original place of employment was proving to be increasingly difficult. After an initial consult, we determined that their situation provided a strong argument for "extenuating circumstances," the key component for successful J-1 Waiver transfer petitions, and the details of their situation would likely allow the doctor to pursue a successful J-1 Waiver Transfer.

This physician was referred to us by another J-1 waiver client due to our strong reputation and track record of approvals. As with most IMG physicians nearing the end of their J-1 time, they were looking for the best way to continue to offer their medical expertise in the U.S. with fulfilling the J-1 two-year home residency requirement. Conrad 30 programs often have limited application windows near the end of the year operated on a first-come-first-serve basis. This physician had served J-1 time in Illinois and Florida specializing in infectious diseases and internal medicine, and approached us with merely a week left in the Texas Conrad 30 window. We were happy to assist, and despite the tight timeline, we were successful in attaining a Texas Conrad 30 recommendation. This physician is planning to start work on J-1 Visa Waiver H-1B starting in the Fall of 2023.

Physicians often retain our firm to help them transition from J-1 to H-1B through the J-1 Waiver process. We worked with this IMG physician to attain a Conrad 30 Recommendation for J-1 Waiver that would allow them to continue their practice without fulfilling the two-year home residency requirement. They had served J-1 time in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island while training in Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Disease, and Critical Care. The Conrad 30 program is a common choice for those looking to start in a new position following their training, and we have had great success in attaining Conrad 30 recommendations for our clients. This physician received the Conrad 30 recommendation for Texas and is planning to start their employment in August 2023.

An IMG New York Physician specializing in Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Disease, and Critical Care approached us to help them attain a J-1 Waiver so that they would not be subject to the two-year home residency applied to many J-1 holders. We worked with them to apply for the Texas Conrad 30 program. The Texas Conrad 30 program issued a recommendation for their waiver, and the J-1 Waiver was approved with a successful H-1B obtained to allow the physician to continue offering their medical experience and expertise to an underserved area. As with the majority of cases we handle, the process from Conrad 30 to J-1 Waiver to H-1B was smooth and allowed the physician to begin work the following Autumn. This application was processed quicker than usual at under 2 months from initial Conrad 30 recommendation submission to J-1 Waiver approval.

This physician, specializing in Internal Medicine, wanted to pursue a J-1 Waiver Transfer based purely on personal issues that lead to a successful argument of "extenuating circumstances." The IMG doctor was practicing in California while their fiancé was working in Pennsylvania. They were looking to start a family, and the circumstances requiring frequent travel for them to spend time together was causing the doctor depression, anxiety, and fatigue. This resulted in a health issue partially attributed to the physician's work schedule and environment by a mental health professional. We argued that the physician was unable to continue to work while maintaining their health.

This physician, specializing in Internal Medicine, wanted to pursue a J-1 Waiver Transfer based purely on personal issues that lead to a successful argument of "extenuating circumstances." The IMG doctor was practicing in California while their fiancé was working in Pennsylvania. They were looking to start a family, and the circumstances requiring frequent travel for them to spend time together was causing the doctor depression, anxiety, and fatigue. This resulted in a health issue partially attributed to the physician's work schedule and environment by a mental health professional. We argued that the physician was unable to continue to work while maintaining their health.

An IMG physician retained our services to change employers after serving a year and half of their J-1 Waiver 3-year requirement. The Internal Medicine and Cardiac Imaging Specialist physician experienced an incident at their workplace in which a patient was aggressive and caused the doctor to fear for their safety. Management was unresponsive and responded by frequently raising minor issues regarding the doctor's work. We argued that the doctor was clearly terminated in a retaliatory manner that was not related to their actual performance. The physician was then out-of-status with 60 days to find a new employer and successfully regain authorization to complete their J-1 Waiver term elsewhere.

The Illinois Legislature has passed a series of bills that work to improve the working conditions and rights of all employees. The bills became effective on January 1, 2023 and are summarized below.

Illinois Senate Bill 3146 contains amendments to meal and rest breaks. The bill states that employers must provide a 24 hour break period for every 7 consecutive days worked. The bill also states that after 7.5 hours of work, employees must be provided with a 20-minute break every additional 4.5 hours worked during that shift.

This Hospitalist had experienced a number of hardships in her personal life that made finishing the three year requirement in her original place of employment a near impossibility. After an initial consult with the Hospitalist, we determined that her situation provided a strong argument for extenuating circumstances that would allow the doctor to pursue a J-1 Waiver Transfer.

This Hospitalist was engaged to a fellow physician who was serving their J-1 Waiver time across the country. This long distance resulted in a serious strain on the Hospitalist's time and energy through frequent travel. The stresses resulting from this were further compounded by the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, resulting in additional risks around frequent travel. Additionally, the Hospitalist became pregnant, and due to the stresses and requirements of the work and distance, it became increasingly difficult for her to maintain her busy schedule in a healthy manner without any family or loved ones nearby to provide support.

Due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration announced it would be granting temporary protective status (TPS) to Ukraine citizens, or those who last habitually resided in the Ukraine who have no nationality, who have been living in the U.S. without legal documentation since March 1 or earlier. If you are eligible for this status, it would give you permission to stay and work in the US for 18 months. This time can be extended by the administration if the conditions in the Ukraine have not improved by the end of the designation.

TPS is intended to protect citizens from countries where they are experiencing armed conflict or a natural disaster that makes it unsafe to return. However, this does not provide for permanent residency. You can apply for this status even if you currently possess a valid non-permanent visa, like a visitor (B-1/B-1) or a student (F-1/F-1) visa. This helps protect you from deportation when those visas expire or while you are in the process of applying for a more permanent visa.

Since this is not intended to be a permanent status, the best action after filing and being granted TPS is to start looking at other more permanent visa options. Asonye and Associates can help you navigate the immigration process during this hard time and help you find more permanent status in the US. Please do not hesitate to call us or fill out the Contact Us form on our website.

On December 14, 2021, the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it added a new section in its COVID-19 technical assistance clarifying under what circumstance COVID-19 may be considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

COVID-19 is an actual disability under the ADA if the person's medical condition or any of its symptoms is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. This assessment is done on a case-by-case basis and is a fact specific inquiry. EEOC provides few examples of individuals who would and would not qualify to have a COVID disability. An ADA disability does not apply to an employee whose COVID-19 result in mild symptoms that resolve in a few weeks and have no other effect on the person.

Furthermore, an employee who is disabled due to COVID is only entitled to a reasonable accommodation when their disability requires it and the accommodation does not pose an undue hardship for the employer.

After filing a charge with EEOC, a notice of the charge will be sent to the employer within 10 days of the filing date. In some cases, both you and the employer will be asked to take part in mediation. In this process, a mediator will try to help achieve a voluntary settlement by discussing the concerns of both sides. Mediators don't decide or pick sides, rather they suggest ways to solve problems and disagreements.

If the charge is not sent to mediation or if the situation is not resolved, the employer is usually asked to submit a "Respondent's Position Statement." After the statement is available to you, you must provide a response within 20 days.

EEOC will investigate the charge by holding interviews of supervisors and co-workers or by asking for documents. On average, an investigation can take about 10 months to complete, depending on the information needed to be gathered and analyzed.

You can amend your charge after you file it if new discriminatory events take place. You also have the option to file a new charge of discrimination. After the amendment or new charge of discrimination is filed, the document will be sent to the employer and the new events will be investigated with the original charge.

If the charge is filed under Title VII or under the Americans with Disabilities Act, you will need a Notice of Right to Sue from EEOC before filing a lawsuit in federal court. However, you must allow EEOC 180 days to resolve the charge.

If EEOC determines that the employer violated the law, EEOC may try to reach a voluntary settlement with the employer.

How the Build Back Better Act Can Turn the US Economy Around

COVID-19 has exposed major gaps in the U.S. labor force, including immigration concerns for millions of foreign workers due to USCIS processing delays.

Immigration experts point out that in addition to policy changes during the Trump administration, which made work authorization even more strenuous for asylum seekers and immigrants coming to the US, COVID-19 exacerbated the issue with further consulate and agency closures in alignment with quarantine measures. The foreign nationals already in the US have been waiting for months or over a year for work authorization. This major delay has led to these individuals to make the difficult decision to quit their jobs after their current authorization expires. By the end of June 2021, more than 1.3 million work authorization applications were pending with USCIS and an estimated 1.5 million immigrants are still waiting for employment-based green cards, with roughly 850,000 of those workers simply waiting to adjust their status. USCIS has tried to alleviate some of the backlog by taking certain measures such as: temporarily suspending certain biometrics requirements for some groups and granting extensions of work permits, but the issue persists.

It is estimated by the Census Bureau that there were over 1 million immigrants in the US in 2016, leaving only about 480,000 in 2020, according to JPMorgan Researchers. The steady decline of immigrant workers coupled with the 1.7 million people that retired during the pandemic, has threatened not only the labor force but also the overall economic productivity.

The Democrat's $1.7 trillion Build Back Better legislation is aimed at addressing the labor force gap caused partly by immigration complications due to USCIS delays and backlogs. To provide some background, Employment-based visas are capped at 140,000 each year and will expire at the end of the year if they go unused. Currently individuals from any one country only have access to about 7% of the annual amount of work-based and family-based green cards, with individuals from certain countries facing a wait that spans years. The proposed legislation would recapture immigrant visas starting from 1992, which could potentially open up 157,000 work-based visas and about 262,000 family-based visas – both allowing applicants to work.

The bill has yet to be passed due to lack of support from Republicans and there are those who criticize the effectiveness of the act. For example, The Federation for American Immigration Reform argued in an analysis of the Build Back Better act that "the sudden increase in the supply of legal labor generated by amnesty would likely further contribute to wage stagnation, giving employers even less incentive to raise wages." Robert Law, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, adds that he is concerned the funds proposed would not be enough to combat the immense backlog issues UCSIC is facing. Law believes that "There's too much volume, there's too many other obstacles."

Despite the concerns, the Build Back Better Act is focused on providing temporary protection and work authorization to an estimated 7 million undocumented immigrants — including Dreamers and farmworkers — who are already in the U.S., leading Democrats to remain hopeful that this will kickstart the economic recovery.

On March 23, 2021, Governor J. B. Pritzker signed into law S.B. 1480, which amends certain sections of the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA).

Among three amendments, one change adopted by this law makes it a civil rights violation for any employer to use a conviction record when making employment decisions such as hiring, promoting, discharging, and renewing employment unless specified exceptions apply. Employers may consider a conviction record if there is a substantial relationship between the criminal offense and the employment or the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of a specific individual.

If employer's preliminary employment decision is based on a person's conviction record, the employer must notify the person in writing. This notification requires specific information to be disclosed: 1) the disqualifying conviction(s) and employer's reasoning for the disqualification, 2) copy of the conviction history report and 3) explanation of the individual's rights to respond to the notice.

The employee or job applicant gets at least 5 business days to respond before employer makes a final decision. If employer makes a final employment decision based on the conviction, the employer must notify the employee in writing with the following: 1) notice of the disqualifying conviction and employer's reasoning, 2) existing procedures to challenge the decision or request reconsideration with the employer and 3) the right to file a charge with the Illinois Department of Human Rights.

This change imposes a firmer requirement on the use of a conviction record when employers make employment related decisions.

In early April 2017, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled that employer discrimination against an employee’s sexual orientation is illegal. In an 8-3 decision, the 7th Circuit held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 affords the same protections to sexual orientation as it does to sex.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, national origin, color, and sex. For many years, the 7th Circuit understood that Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex excluded sexual orientation. While the Supreme Court of the United States never expressly answered this question, the Supreme Court’s recent decisions regarding sex discrimination convinced the 7th Circuit to look at the language of Title VII with fresh and modern eyes.

The Supreme Court’s decisions over the last two decades broadly interpreted discrimination on the basis of sex to include interracial marriages, sexual harassment in the workplace (including same-sex sexual harassment in the workplace), and discrimination based on gender or sex stereotyping. The 7th Circuit used the Supreme Court’s framework and analysis when reviewing Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana.

In Hively, the Plaintiff was an openly married lesbian woman who worked for the Defendant as a part-time Adjunct Professor for fourteen years. Between 2009 and 2014, the Plaintiff sought and applied for a full-time position at Ivy Tech at least six times. In 2014, her part-time contract was not renewed and the Plaintiff filed a charge with the EEOC, believing that the Defendant was spurning her employment opportunities because of her sexual orientation.

The 7th Circuit interpreted the language of Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex to mean that the Plaintiff was being disadvantaged because she was a woman and did not conform to “gender stereotypes.” Simply put, if the Plaintiff was born a man but everything else stayed the same, the Defendant would have not discriminated against her. The 7th Circuit believed allowing a policy on sexual orientation discrimination was based on assumptions about what was considered proper and normal behavior for someone of a given sex. The 7th Circuit reasoned this can no longer stand in light of the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision regarding same-sex marriages as a fundamental liberty that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

This is a landmark and historical ruling for the protection of sexual orientation in the workplace.

J-1 Waiver Granted to a Colombian Pulmonary and Critical Care Physician to Serve in an Underserved Area in San Antonio, Texas

This physician from Colombia completed her Internal Medicine Residency and Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship while on a J-1 Visa. To forgo the 2 year home residency requirement, the physician found a job in an underserved area in Texas with an employer who agreed to sponsor her J-1 Waiver and H-1B. 

The physicians group retained our firm to file the J-1 Waiver. In the application, we demonstrated that the area in which the physician will work had diminished access to medical care. We showed that the physicians group is trying to expand their services to satisfy the needs of the community and enhance its access to primary medical care reducing the need for emergency care. We also argued that this can only be accomplished by adequate physician staffing. With adequate physician staffing, the community that the doctor will serve will enjoy better access to health care, decreased hospital costs and reduced burden on the emergency departments. The application was approved and the physician’s 2 year foreign residence requirement was waived. After we secured the J-1 Waiver, we successfully applied for the physician’s H-1B visa.

J-1 Waiver Granted to a Colombian Pulmonary and Critical Care Physician to Serve in an Underserved Area in San Antonio, Texas

This physician from Colombia completed her Internal Medicine Residency and Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship while on a J-1 Visa. To forgo the 2 year home residency requirement, the physician found a job in an underserved area in Texas with an employer who agreed to sponsor her J-1 Waiver and H-1B.

The physicians group retained our firm to file the J-1 Waiver. In the application, we demonstrated that the area in which the physician will work had diminished access to medical care. We showed that the physicians group is trying to expand their services to satisfy the needs of the community and enhance its access to primary medical care reducing the need for emergency care. We also argued that this can only be accomplished by adequate physician staffing. With adequate physician staffing, the community that the doctor will serve will enjoy better access to health care, decreased hospital costs and reduced burden on the emergency departments. The application was approved and the physician’s 2 year foreign residence requirement was waived. After we secured the J-1 Waiver, we successfully applied for the physician’s H-1B visa.

A Physician’s Group in Oklahoma retained our firm to assist with the employment of three hospitalists in H-1B status. The Physician’s Group serviced hospitals in medically underserved areas and needed to fill part-time positions. The Physician’s Group understood how complex the immigration process is and wanted to ensure that this second employment would not negatively impact the physicians’ current H-1B status and full time employment. Our firm filed concurrent H-1Bs for each physician. In the petition, we outlined the details of the position including the location, duties, and the number of hours required of each physician. Two of the physicians also had previously secured J-1 Waivers. In drafting the concurrent H-1B petitions, our firm ensured that the physicians continued to fulfill all the requirements of their J-1 Waivers. Once our firm confirmed that the moonlighting met all the requirements and would not negatively impact the physicians’ current visas, we successfully submitted the petitions and received an approval shortly after.