See McDonnell Douglas Corp., 2 OCAHO 351, at 370 (1991) ("Although I agree that native born American citizens were not the primary target of protection in the enactment of IRCA, I disagree with the implication that they are not protected.").
(215.) See McDonnell Douglas, 2 OCAHO 351, at 361 (1991) (finding employer unlawfully rejected qualified U.S.
As a result, OCAHO's case load relating to these cases has increased significantly in size and complexity in the last five years and is expected to continue.
The employer elects whether to pay the fines, negotiate a settlement, or request a hearing before OCAHO within 30 days of receipt of the NIF.
Particularly, the OCAHO complaint is not required to show that "the pleader is entitled to relief."
A complaint filed before OCAHO "has already been the subject of an underlying administrative process," such as an ICE inspection, and, thus, an OCAHO complaint "will ordinarily come as no surprise to a respondent that has already participated in the underlying process." (2)
However, OCAHO case law does not support that leniency is warranted based solely on the lack of prior violations.
Although OCAHO recently issued several employer-favorable decisions, the majority of those decisions involved companies that were considered small businesses.