Issues on DEI from EEOC and DOJ AND Fast Breaking News on Recent Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Immigrant Work Authorizations.

DEI is one of the most controversial issues that is most current.  The issues are so major that a significant portion of Fortune 500 companies have changed or withdrawn their DEI policies.  Since the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Supreme Court ruling in 2023, many were wondering how the ruling applicable to higher education would apply in the employment setting.  In light of the executive orders issued by President Trump this year, and more recently the Guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) on March 19, 2025, now we know.  Please join this webinar on Friday, June 6, 2025 at noon, to find out the type of programs that are recommended, if not mandated, that are now considered targets of discrimination claims themselves. 

Some of the issues to be discussed are the following:

• What type of policies has the government flagged as being likely discriminatory, but previously allowed?
• What type of affirmative action steps may still be taken without violating applicable law?
• Are employers revising their written DEI policies, and if so, how?

The program was led by Betsy Dorminey, Jim Wimberly, & Jim Hughes.

Watch This Webinar

Note: Slightly edited for grammar and clarity.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (00:00): Welcome to our noon webinar, held on the first Friday of every month. Our advertised topic is dealing with DEI issues in light of the guidance put out by the EEOC and the Department of Justice, in which they bring more clarity as to how the law and executive orders will be interpreted or applied in reference to DEI. We added the topic of immigration at the last minute because so many things are happening so fast, including a Supreme Court ruling last Friday, that we felt compelled to address the immigration issue in this program as well. So, my name's Jim Wimberley. I'm the MC and the second speaker, but I'm now going to introduce the first speaker, Betsy Dormy, who has been a member here for approximately 30 years. At one time it was publicized that Betsy was a candidate to become the EEOC General Counsel. It didn't happen, and we're glad we were able to keep her here. Who knows, she might be in the cabinet by now. Otherwise, <laugh>. Betsy is going to give us a little bit of the background on the DEI issues, and then I'm going to appear next and get into how that affects us and our DEI programs going forward. So, Betsy, the floor is yours.

Elizabeth K. Dorminey (01:54): Well, thank you very much, Jim. You're very generous in your introduction, as always. This has been a very interesting topic in our civic life and in the employment arena, particularly since, as it won't be news to anybody listening today, employers have been a little bit whipsawed on this one. Between one administration and the next, policies that are mandatory suddenly become forbidden. So that does kind of make a challenge for people who are trying to keep up. But I think that one place to start with this discussion is with a little bit of a definition of terms. DEI, of course, refers to policies that deal with diversity, that's the D, equity, and inclusion. And these are great concepts that express the desire to include all kinds of people with all kinds of different backgrounds and other characteristics.

Elizabeth K. Dorminey (02:59): But as a concept, the definition of DEI has morphed, and not unlike the word "woke," has changed over time and gone from a policy that has generally positive connotations to being one that has overwhelmingly negative connotations. And this is reflected in the ballot box when things change from one administration to the next. The incoming administration with Mr. President Trump has taken the position that these policies are not to be pursued under any circumstances because they amount to discrimination, treating people differently based on immutable characteristics. And that, unlike the former administration, which was requiring companies to come up with policies to promote DEI and have offices and to be conscious of such characteristics in their hiring, this is now forbidden. And it is really very consistent with the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions.

Elizabeth K. Dorminey (04:14): When the policies that were in place at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were successfully challenged by students who said that what these universities were doing in the name of promoting diversity was in effect nothing more or less than plain old discrimination, which has been proscribed by the court. It was a prior decision by Justice Roberts, not the Students for Fair Admission one, but he came up with the, I think, somewhat immortal line of "the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." And that was what led us to these new changes in policy and enforcement and also to the Supreme Court's decision just yesterday, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which Jim Wimberley is going to be addressing shortly. We don't have endless time, so I'm going to try to keep it rather brief now, and we can explore things as we go along.

Elizabeth K. Dorminey (05:17): But as a part of this administrative change in policy, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) have announced their intent to prosecute companies and organizations that continue to engage in DEI policies, which again, they would regard as simple discrimination on the basis of race or sex or whatever else it happens to be. And I don't know that there have been many prosecutions yet. This administration, despite all of its activity, is still fairly young, but they have at least announced their policy to pursue these things and to use the False Claims Act at the Department of Justice, which is a pretty broad prohibition or penalization for making false statements to the government or, and generally it's a provision that has been much criticized because it can be used in a lot of flexible ways. But the DOJ has stated their intent to prosecute those who continue to engage in this kind of discriminatory hiring and promotion practices. I don't know if that's enough of an introduction, Jim, do you think? And do you want to dive in and talk about the Ames case or other aspects? Yeah,

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (06:45): I want to introduce the discussion of the Ames case by asking the rhetorical question: Is the new direction of the administration, the courts, and the law significantly different from the law in the past? And I want to give perhaps a controversial opinion on that, that in my view, the direction of the current state of the law could have been predicted in seeing the trend in the prior cases. For example, the most probably pro affirmative action ruling of the Supreme Court was its 2003 ruling in the Grutter case. And in that ruling, the court found that the desire for a university to have a diverse student body might be a compelling state interest, allowing race or sex preferences in admissions. But even in that decision, which you might say goes further than any of them to allow some type of affirmative action, the court indicated that at some point, all race-based considerations had to be eliminated.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (08:29): Since that was a 2003 case, those 25 years are almost upon us. So that's an example of how you could see the direction the law was changing. Now, of course, in the Harvard case that Betsy alluded to, that put an end to any type preferences based on race, sex, or national origin in admissions to universities. And I want to quote you a quote from that case. The Supreme Court said in that decision, which was in June of 2023, "The heart of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection lies in the simple command that the government must treat¹ any citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual, or national class." That's what the Supreme Court said in its 6-3 decision in the Harvard case a couple years ago.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (09:51): Now, fast forward to yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in the Ames case that Betsy alluded to. This case involves some interesting facts. I'm going to very briefly state them because I think you can see it was an interesting situation. This was a suit by a straight heterosexual female who claimed that she was being discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation. I'm sorry, because as a straight person, she claimed she was discriminated against in favor of those with a sexual orientation for the same sex. Let me back up and say that again. She was straight, claimed she was discriminated against because those who were gay got preferential treatment in promotions, raises, the gamut. And the lower courts, before the case reached the Supreme Court, said that they had to find the defendant was an unusual employer that discriminated against the majority to find that a case had been made out. And they, in essence, threw the case out of court because special circumstances hadn't been shown that this was such an unusual employer that it discriminated against the majority. Well, this case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court made a 9-0 unanimous ruling. And, you know, lawyers can't agree on anything, and the Supreme Court is no exception. So, for there to be a 9-0 ruling on an issue is certainly unusual. Also, it's significant that Justice Jackson, generally considered the most liberal member of the court, wrote this opinion. And here's what she says, and remember the quote I gave you a little earlier out of the 6-3 Supreme Court decision in the Harvard case just two years ago. But here's what she said. She said that the law established the same protections for every individual without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group. And that Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority group plaintiffs alone.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (12:56): I would suggest that the language the Supreme Court ruled in this 9-0 concept with all the justices agreeing, no matter who appointed, that we have to look at people as individuals and not just the class or group they're out of. It's the same concept the Supreme Court applied in the Harvard case, the ruling that there can't be preferences in admissions. Couple of other comments on the Harvard case. Before we get into where that leaves us at the present time, as a follow up to the Harvard case, President Trump issued an executive order abandoning the affirmative action requirements of the federal contract laws. And I just want to make a brief comment on that. The Affirmative Action Executive Order originally issued by President Johnson, as I recall, although it required employers to look at their makeup of their workforces, and when they were vastly lacking in persons of some race or sex or national origin as compared to those in the immediate area of the facility.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (14:27): In that situation, that executive order required employers who were contracting with the federal government to analyze this and set goals and timetables to be more representative of their community. And that was what the affirmative action concept was all about. But as written, it also emphasized that in no case would any individual be disadvantaged because of their race, sex, or national origin. So I submit to you that the Affirmative Action Program as originally developed was really not in violation of the principles later set forth in the Harvard case. And now, I think, in the Ames case. However, the way it was applied, <laugh> often led to the dreaded word "quotas." There was a reaction to it and a realization that in some cases, affirmative action had become a "quota." And I think to fan the fury, there were advocates of affirmative action.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (15:45): And I quote from Mr. Kendi's book that I read and would suggest to others they read, it's called How to Be an Anti-Racist. His belief was that to be an anti-racist, the gains of society, including employment, had to be divided proportionally by race, sex, national origin, and so forth. In other words, he believed that to do equity there had to be equitable results, meaning the benefits of society needed to flow to each group by their racial or sexual group proportionally to their representation. So some DEI programs in recent years have allegedly gone so far as to be sympathetic with what Mr. Kendi had to say and gone to great lengths to bring the representation of underrepresented groups in their workplaces to a representative status, much as Mr. Kendi would've advocated, and in my view, beyond what the original affirmative action plans were supposed to do.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (17:10): So that leads us to the current situation, which basically says that you have to treat people as individuals, and they cannot be discriminated against as individuals, whatever group, race, sex, or national origin they come from. So where does that leave us? And that's the key part of the program today. In the last month, both the Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have come out with guidelines or interpretations of where they think the law leads. And I want to tell you my view, and this is my personal view, and I will tell you where it's supported by many others and I will tell you whether my personal views may be unique when I get to those. But the first question, in light of the fact that DEI has become a bit of a dirty word, so to speak, can we use those terms—DEI related terms—in our company policies anymore? Well, the fact of the matter is, and I don't think my view is unique, I think this is a majority, if not almost unanimous view. There's nothing inherently illegal in the term DEI or its components, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Here's the problem: if you use those terms in your policies, they have become a red flag for further scrutiny. As a matter of fact, there are groups in the country that are going around looking on corporate websites, seeing if they can find those terms in company policies, and are contacting those companies and, in some cases, making demands and threatening litigation over their use. So my conclusion on those terms: they're not illegal, but they warrant scrutiny. Therefore, plaintiff groups are going to be on the lookout to attack those terms because, to plaintiff groups, the term DEI suggests that racial or sexual preferences are being used in hiring and promotion. Second issue, goals and timetables. I'm going to state what I believe is the majority view among others. It's not a unanimous view, but it's a majority view that, just like the term DEI, there's nothing inherently illegal in using the term goals and timetables. But in my view and the view of most others, it's dangerous terminology to use because when you say you have corporate goals to bring up minority or female hiring, for example, and timetables to reach those goals, plaintiff groups will argue that that means you're going to prefer those minorities, to prefer those females. So whatever group it is, because remember, each racial and sexual group has equal rights under the law.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (21:15): So the use of that terminology and practice suggests that illegal preferences are going on. So many companies (I don't have official, accurate data on this, but I would suggest to you that probably half of the large companies, or close to it) are abandoning the concept of goals and timetables because, first, it's no longer required by the law, and second, it raises a lot of scrutiny and suggests illegal preferences are going on. Next issue: affinity groups. First of all, what are affinity groups? And I'll have to confess to you, I wasn't so sure what they were either. So I'm going to give you what I think is the general definition of an affinity group. Many companies, to encourage inclusion and cooperation among people of different national origins, races, et cetera, have allowed groups of those people to come together to discuss their problems and potential solutions.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (22:28): They're talking groups, you might say. To tell you how far it's gone, <laugh>, and the problems that can come from affinity groups. I remember reading about one company (I don't think it's GE, but it might have been) that kind of sticks in my mind. You know how many different affinity groups they had? They had 37. And these affinity groups were always arguing among themselves. It was an argument among those who, Southeast Asia, for example, that "we don't want to be considered Southeast Asian. You know, we're native of Vietnam, and we don't identify with Southeast Asian." So you can see the kind of problems that came up with affinity groups as a practical matter. But what we now have in the interpretations by the EEOC and DOJ is that if you have an affinity group, such a discussion group in your company, and the participation is limited to that particular race, sex, or national origin, that's illegal job segregation. So that is the only official no-no. Affinity groups or discussion groups with different groups of people are not prohibited, but they've got to be open to all employees. Now, let me address something that's not been addressed anywhere, and I'm going to give you my personal opinion, which I think is right. Can an affinity group, although it has to be open to people of every race, sex, and national origin, but the affinity group is based on, for example, sexual, we'll call it sexual orientation.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (24:25): Can discussion in that affinity group be limited to sexual orientation? Well, that's the main purpose of the group—to discuss that particular problem with the employer, perhaps potential solutions. Well, I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I believe an affinity group probably can limit the discussion to the group issue being addressed, although the participants have to be open to all. Now, in saying this, I'm giving a personal opinion, and I haven't seen anybody give an opinion on this subject, but I'm crazy enough to give an opinion on just about anything. So there you go. We are going to have a Q&A at the end, by the way. Okay, so the next subject I want to discuss with you is equal employment and harassment training. Believe it or not, that's very controversial. Some of you may say, well, gee, you thought training for particularly harassment and EEO was a good thing, something you basically had to do as a practical matter, if not a legal matter.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (25:42): So what fault can anybody find with it? Well, before I give you an answer or my opinion, let me at least comment on a national company I know: Starbucks. You may recall there was a problem in Pennsylvania a few years ago where some minority customers (actually, they weren't buying anything) were thrown out. There was a big national hullabaloo, and Starbucks did something incredible: they closed all their facilities across the country. I can't remember if it was a whole day or half a day to conduct this equal employment or equal treatment concept. And guess what? The participants in those meetings were often made uncomfortable. So there are some practical problems with EEO and harassment training. You can make some of the participants uncomfortable, but in addition, the EEOC and the DOJ now say that training becomes potentially illegal if you use racial or sexual stereotypes, or if you make any racial or sexual group feel guilty, because if you do, it can be considered a form of a hostile environment, much like a sexual harassment hostile environment. Next issue, efforts to widen recruiting pools. Guess what? I'm of the view, and I am in a majority, not unanimous, but I'm in the majority on this, that this is one area where affirmative action can still lawfully and fully be applied. If you don't have enough members of a certain sex or national origin compared to those in your area, it's not illegal to go out into the community—to their schools, to their churches, to whatever areas they gather—and encourage them to come and apply at your company. And you can be selective in doing so.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (28:34): I believe that encouraging a wider applicant pool among underrepresented groups is still legal, even under the current concepts. Next issue, mentorship programs. What is a mentorship program? That's when a senior person takes a new person under their wing, so to speak, to help them along. It's got to be open to people of every race, sex, or national origin. You can't discriminate in mentorship programs. The last one I'm going to touch on, removal of barriers. This is actually not discussed in the EEO and DOJ rules, but there's nothing wrong with finding what criteria you use to hire people. Maybe it's an educational requirement, maybe it's something else, but that criteria is keeping out certain minorities or what have you. Well, you can remove those criteria without violating the equal employment laws. You're just making it easier for people to be hired or promoted based on the criteria you're using. I've run out of time and save your questions till the end. I want to move over to the last and obviously, or possibly hottest topic: immigration. Jim Hughes has been with the firm over 30 years. He's been a specialist in immigration over those years. And Jim, update us on the new hot topics under immigration that our group needs to know about.

James L. Hughes (30:18): Thank you, Jim. Let me give you a brief outline of what I will talk about today. First, I want to describe the Secretary's authority under the TPS statute. Then we'll talk about where things stand with TPS for Venezuelan workers under the 2021 and the 2023 designation. Then we'll talk about TPS for Haitians and TPS for Cameroonians. Then we'll talk about the Secretary's authority under the parole statute and the recent Supreme Court case dealing with parole for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. And we'll wrap up with what do we do. So at first, let's talk about the Secretary's authority. Under the TPS statute, existing law gives the Secretary of Homeland Security absolute discretion in deciding whether to create or terminate TPS status for workers from various countries. In addition to giving the Secretary absolute authority, the statute prohibits courts from interfering with that exercise of authority.

James L. Hughes (31:43): Now, how does that relate to TPS for Venezuelans under the 2021 designation or the 2023 designation? Presently, there is no Supreme Court decision with respect to Venezuelans under the 2021 designation, and their work authorization, according to the government website, ends in April of 2026. There is litigation with respect to TPS Venezuelan under the 2023 designation. The government website indicates that their work authorization will terminate April 2nd, 2026. But that date is under protest because of pending litigation. The litigation is called Nome v. National TPS Alliance, and the Supreme Court decision came out on May 19th, 2025, just a few weeks ago. The background of the case is that the National TPS Alliance sued in California court to prevent the Trump administration from terminating TPS status for Venezuelans who acquired TPS status under the 2023 designation. The trial court decided that the Trump administration was discriminating against Venezuelans based on their national origin or citizenship, and therefore, it entered an order prohibiting the Trump administration from terminating TPS status for those particular Venezuelans.

James L. Hughes (33:41): The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The federal government asked the Ninth Circuit to terminate the trial court order that barred the government from terminating TPS status for those particular Venezuelans. The Ninth Circuit refused to do that, and the government appealed to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court terminated the trial court's order prohibiting the government from terminating TPS status. What does that mean? Well, the order was without prejudice to certain people who have TPS status with an authorization through October 2nd, 2026. But it seems to go into effect for everyone else who has a different expiration date for TPS status. Furthermore, the government website for TPS Venezuelan workers with the 2023 designation still show that they have work authorization through April 2nd, 2026. But that work authorization is under protest and could change with subsequent court decisions. The Supreme Court referred the case back to the Ninth Circuit for a decision on the government's appeal, and we can expect a decision by the Ninth Circuit this year.

James L. Hughes (35:38): I also expect the Ninth Circuit to agree that the Secretary has authority to terminate the TPS program, and that that exercise of discretion is not subject to judicial review. Then I expect the National TPS Alliance to appeal to the Supreme Court, which in all likelihood will deny their appeal. But that's your prediction. That's my prediction. Okay. That's my prediction. Now, what about TPS for Haitians? Presently, their work authorization expires August 3rd, 2025. There is litigation pending in the California court that issued the ruling on the TPS Venezuelan 2023 designation. We do not know what that judge will do given the Supreme Court decision, but the trial judge could do the same thing that they did for TPS Venezuela. Now, why would they do that? Well, it's favorable jurisdiction <laugh> for the TPS plaintiffs in this case. It was a delay tactic that was used previously during the first Trump administration when the Trump administration tried to terminate TPS status for Venezuelans and Haitians. And the delay tactic worked because the Biden administration then favorably terminated that litigation and left it for the Trump administration to deal with this year.

James L. Hughes (37:33): Now, for TPS Cameroon, earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security indicated that they will terminate TPS status for Cameroonians effective August 4th, 2025. There are only about 5,000 people in the United States who have TPS status based on citizenship in Cameroon. Now, let's talk about the Secretary's authority. Under the parole statute, like under TPS, the Secretary has absolute discretion to grant parole or to terminate parole status. And that exercise of discretion whether to create or to terminate, cannot be reviewed by a court. So why do we have all this litigation? Well, in Boston Federal Court, there was a case filed called Nome v. Doe, and the Supreme Court issued its decision in Nome v. Doe on May 30, 2025. Just last week, the trial court had decided that the Department of Homeland Security should be prevented from terminating the status of those workers who entered the United States pursuant to one of the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, or Venezuela parole programs. And those programs were created in 2022 and 2023. During the Biden administration, the US Supreme Court set aside the trial court decision, which now allows the Department of Homeland Security to proceed with removal of those people who have parole status based on one of those programs. In addition, the Supreme Court referred the case back to the First Circuit for a decision on the government's appeal of the trial court order.

James L. Hughes (39:42): Unlike TPS, there's no government website telling us when work authorization ends for people under one of these parole programs, but the Department of Homeland Security has issued a press release indicating that they are beginning removal of people in one of those parole programs. I do expect a decision by the First Circuit this year. I also expect the First Circuit to agree with the Supreme Court that the Secretary has discretion to terminate the program, and that that discretion is not subject to judicial review. Again, I expect an appeal to the US Supreme Court, which would be denied. I do know from talking with clients that people in these parole programs are receiving notices of revocation of their work authorization, and those notices are being delivered by the Department of Homeland Security to those parolees. It is also possible that employers may be receiving notice of revocation through the E-Verify system. So when you receive an alert from E-Verify, you should pay attention to those and determine whether you're receiving notice of revocation. Now, what should employers do? Dan,

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (41:20): Let me stop you right there. And let me say, we've had some internal discussions about this and we've surprisingly tend to agree with the conclusions, but I want to, I think I heard you say that in light of the fact that the parole program under the Supreme Court decision has been discontinued for those groups that they're subject to deportation currently, right?

James L. Hughes (41:50): That's what the Department of Homeland Security announced in their press release, but

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (41:57): Employers can still lawfully keep them in their employ until their work authorization is revoked. Is that also what I'm

James L. Hughes (42:05): Hearing? That's what I was getting to, Jim. Okay. All right. And it's a little more complicated than that. All

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (42:11): Right.

James L. Hughes (42:12): First, let's talk about TPS Venezuela under the 2023 designation. Now, there have been press reports, for example, that Disney has put their workers on unpaid leave, but has continued their benefits. Some employers have terminated their TPS Venezuela workers who were under the 2023 designation, and some employers are waiting for a final decision and are relying on the government website showing work authorization through April 2nd, 2026. Now, people in TPS status are not protected individuals under immigration laws, so they could not bring a discrimination claim under the immigration laws based on employment termination. People under the 2023 TPS status could bring a claim under Title VII for discrimination based on citizenship or national origin. But one question is, what are their damages given that their status may have terminated as early as April 2025, and certainly they wouldn't have any claim for back pay or front pay beyond April 2nd, 2026, and it may end even before that date. So some employers are weighing that issue. If I terminate now, what's the risk of a discrimination claim? And it would sound like it's pretty low. Also, if workers have received notice of revocation of their work authorization, either from the employee or through the E-Verify system, the employer should take action to determine whether the worker has received work authorization under another status, and if not, then terminate their employment.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (44:15): Now, that's an important point, Jim. I just want to give you my lay version of what Jim just said. A person can lose their work authorization status under TPS or the parole program and still potentially qualify for such status under some other concept. That's correct. And so it's wise for the employers to give such persons affected the opportunity to show that to the employer. Right. Okay, go ahead.

James L. Hughes (44:46): Now, for those with an insatiable curiosity <laugh>, you can Google the USCIS case status online and enter the case number that should be recorded on the employee's I-9. The case number begins with three letters and is followed by some numbers. If you find that the work authorization has been revoked, you should take action to determine whether the employee has received work authorization in another status, and if not, terminate employment. Now let's talk about the CEH in the parole programs. Most recently, Walmart has announced that it is beginning to terminate the employment of people who have parole status under one of these programs. But other employers are still waiting for a final decision and are continuing employment in accordance with the expiration date on the employee's EAD.

James L. Hughes (45:51): Like people in TPS status, people in parole status are not protected individuals under immigration laws. So they could not bring a discrimination claim based on employment termination under the immigration laws. But like people in TPS status, they could potentially bring a claim under Title VII based on either citizenship or national origin discrimination. And like people under TPS, there is an issue of whether any damages would be available because of the termination of their status back in April or expiration of their status based on their EAD. Now, like for TPS, if you get notice of revocation of their work authorization, you should determine whether they have any other work authorization based on another status and if not, terminate their employment. And also, you can use the case number on their I-9 to check the USCIS case status online website to see if there's any notice of revocation. Jim,

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (47:08): That employee Jim obligated to do that? No. Do you have Okay.

James L. Hughes (47:12): Only if they have an insatiable curiosity.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (47:14): <Laugh>. Okay. I hope people understand what he's saying. Yes, it's a way you can check up on whether their work authorization has been discontinued, but you don't have to. And if you don't have, as I understand what you're saying, even though they have lost the right to be in this country, or at least they're eligible for deportation under either their expiration of their TPS or the parole, if their work authorization, if they still have an EAD date in the future, you can keep them employed until you have notice that the work authorization has been revoked. Did I overstate that?

James L. Hughes (47:58): You overstated it. Okay. We still don't know what the Department of Homeland Security's enforcement position will be. Okay?

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (48:08): So I'm too optimistic.

James L. Hughes (48:09): You, you are being optimistic. Okay. But you are consistent with what some employers are doing.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (48:16): Okay? Well, I like to let employers know what their potential rights are as well as their exposure. So you've heard what their potential rights are: that is, not to terminate these persons from employment until we have notice that the EAD authorization has been revoked, although enforcement policy on that issue has not yet been expressed by the government.

James L. Hughes (48:44): Right.

Elizabeth K. Dorminey (48:45): Well, and gentlemen, if I may, and offer this, I think part of what Mr. Hughes is saying rather discreetly is, curiosity killed the cat.

James L. Hughes (48:54): <Laugh>.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (48:55): Well, I understand, but Betsy, there are occasions in which the employer finds that out either by E-Verify or by an employee. Believe it or not, some employees are actually letting their employers know their work authorization is gone.

James L. Hughes (49:13): Yeah, and they usually call us and say, what do I do <laugh>? Yeah. So if you do get notice of revocation and there is no other work authorization, you should proceed with termination of that employee.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (49:30): But just as soon as we have information on what the government's enforcement policy is going to be, we'll let you know. I can tell you we've reached out and we know others that have reached out to various government agencies to try to get the government position on this, and nobody's getting any answers. Right, Jim?

James L. Hughes (49:52): I checked again this morning, and no answers.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (49:55): Okay. So we are at the Q&A stage.

James L. Hughes (49:58): We are.

James W. Wimberly, Jr. (50:00): By the way, Jim Hughes provided just a wealth of timely and I think accurate information. The problem is it's all very complex. All right, thank you. We're closing out.

Elizabeth K. Dorminey (50:14): Thank you, gentlemen.