Apple discriminated against US citizens in hiring, DOJ says

Apple’s $25 million settlement with the US Department of Justice centers on claims it structured certain green-card-track (PERM) roles to favor existing foreign visa holders over qualified US citizens and permanent residents, for example by requiring paper-only applications and limiting where jobs were advertised. Commenters argue this reflects a broader pattern in Big Tech of gaming an overly complex immigration and labor-certification system to retain visa-dependent workers while formally complying with “hire American” rules. The thread widens into a debate over whether programs like H‑1B and PERM depress wages and create quasi-indentured workers, or instead bring in highly skilled talent that the US should make it easier to keep permanently.

Scope of DOJ action

  • DOJ alleges Apple discriminated against U.S. citizens, permanent residents, refugees, and asylees in hiring for PERM-based roles (green-card sponsorship positions).
  • Settlement includes up to $25M in back pay and penalties, mandated process changes (online applications allowed, broader advertising), training, and three years of monitoring.
  • Several note this is about national-origin / immigration-status discrimination, similar in legal basis (but opposite direction) to the SpaceX case.

PERM, H‑1B, and how the system works

  • Many comments explain: PERM is part of the employment-based green card process (EB‑2/EB‑3), distinct from getting an H‑1B.
  • Typical pattern: worker is already employed on H‑1B/L‑1, employer then seeks PERM so they can stay long term.
  • Law requires a genuine recruitment effort: print ads, proof job was “clearly open” to U.S. workers, and a certification that no able, willing, qualified U.S. worker was available.

How companies actually use PERM

  • Widespread claim that PERM “recruiting” is a kabuki process: jobs often effectively preassigned to existing visa holders.
  • Common tactics mentioned: obscure job ads (e.g., Sunday newspaper, paper-only applications), overly specific or overly generic descriptions, interview gauntlets designed to reject outsiders.
  • Apple’s paper-only PERM applications are seen as an example of this pattern; some expect the case will make future PERM approvals harder.

Incentives, labor, and power asymmetry

  • Many argue employers favor visa workers because they’re “captive”: changing employers is risky, green-card backlogs (especially for Indians) can mean de facto indentured servitude for a decade or more.
  • Others counter that top-tier H‑1B/EB‑2 workers aren’t cheaper in raw salary, but the system still depresses overall wages and weakens worker bargaining power.
  • Debate over whether there is a genuine talent shortage vs. a “wage shortage.”

Bias, team composition, and discrimination

  • Multiple anecdotes of managers (of various nationalities, including Americans) heavily hiring from their own national or ethnic group; some see this as normal in‑group bias, others as discriminatory in practice.

Reform ideas and attitudes toward Apple

  • Proposals include: automatic green card after some years on a work visa, auction-based H‑1Bs, removing per-country caps, or broadly decoupling immigration status from employment.
  • Some commenters are sympathetic to Apple, blaming an “absurd” immigration regime that forces such games; others see the fine as a trivial slap on the wrist for systemic abuse.