the_jaguar
03-25 10:46 PM
Thanks for the wishes, folks. I wish you all the very best too. Here are some answers:
You said you didn't get a chance to file for I 485 with company A , means you did transfer H1b. Did company A withdraw before you transfered H1b ? Did you do transfer with in initial 6 year of H1b ?
Actually, my first I-140 was approved after I left the company. For some strange reason, Company A didn't withdraw the application immediately, but waited until it got approved - they were probably hoping that I would go back to them, which I might still do. We parted on good terms.
Yes, I did transfer my H-1B and I was within my initial 6 year period.
Once your I-140 is approved and even if the employer files to revoke the I-140 it will not affect your status. It is at the discretion of the USCIS to revoke the approved I-140. USCIS will revoke the approved I-140 if it detects that it was fraudulently obtained.
Now to answer your question : Even if company A files to revoke I-140 before the individual files for H1 transfer, it does not make a difference to the individual.
In my case, I know that company A filed to withdraw my I-140 for sure. This will be hard to believe, but it's true: both company A and company B use the same law firm, so my lawyer knew that company A had withdrawn my I-140. Yes, the approval is at USCIS's discretion, but this is a grey area - Yates memo says that the priority date can be retained as long as the application has not been revoked by USCIS due to fraud, but the law seems to be a bit ambiguous (I am not a lawyer though). This ends up making each of these cases unique. I am just happy that I didn't have to go through a lengthy MTR process...
You said you didn't get a chance to file for I 485 with company A , means you did transfer H1b. Did company A withdraw before you transfered H1b ? Did you do transfer with in initial 6 year of H1b ?
Actually, my first I-140 was approved after I left the company. For some strange reason, Company A didn't withdraw the application immediately, but waited until it got approved - they were probably hoping that I would go back to them, which I might still do. We parted on good terms.
Yes, I did transfer my H-1B and I was within my initial 6 year period.
Once your I-140 is approved and even if the employer files to revoke the I-140 it will not affect your status. It is at the discretion of the USCIS to revoke the approved I-140. USCIS will revoke the approved I-140 if it detects that it was fraudulently obtained.
Now to answer your question : Even if company A files to revoke I-140 before the individual files for H1 transfer, it does not make a difference to the individual.
In my case, I know that company A filed to withdraw my I-140 for sure. This will be hard to believe, but it's true: both company A and company B use the same law firm, so my lawyer knew that company A had withdrawn my I-140. Yes, the approval is at USCIS's discretion, but this is a grey area - Yates memo says that the priority date can be retained as long as the application has not been revoked by USCIS due to fraud, but the law seems to be a bit ambiguous (I am not a lawyer though). This ends up making each of these cases unique. I am just happy that I didn't have to go through a lengthy MTR process...
shree772000
08-21 05:41 PM
Usually lawyers refrain from setting these king of dates....I am talking abt resonablely fair ones.
I feel its ur stupid act to know what other people think...You should have asked instead of "Lawyer Says...".
Noone can say when ur perticular case will be adjudicated, and I mean Noone.
I feel its ur stupid act to know what other people think...You should have asked instead of "Lawyer Says...".
Noone can say when ur perticular case will be adjudicated, and I mean Noone.
bestia
07-17 03:12 AM
Wow, I feel you. I've been in such situation. How big your company is? Whose lawyer is taking care of your case - yours or employer's? Try to contact the lawyer directly. Do you know if any violation regarding working conditions your employer has? If they are on shaky ground, you can be more aggressive with them. You can have several ways of pushing them.
Maybe it's late for you now. But after my first employer's games, when I joined my second employer I demanded at the very beginning that I will have my lawyer and everything will go through him. Only when I got my H1b through my lawyer I joined them.
When I placed my "two weeks notice" my ex-boss was walking after me, begging not to leave. When I left, they threatened me with lawsuits. Never filed any after I mentioned him about hiring illegaly few guys and pointing on some other violations they had.
Maybe it's late for you now. But after my first employer's games, when I joined my second employer I demanded at the very beginning that I will have my lawyer and everything will go through him. Only when I got my H1b through my lawyer I joined them.
When I placed my "two weeks notice" my ex-boss was walking after me, begging not to leave. When I left, they threatened me with lawsuits. Never filed any after I mentioned him about hiring illegaly few guys and pointing on some other violations they had.
eb3_nepa
08-10 04:52 PM
Guys,
I am happy to share with you all that I applied my 485 on 1 week of June and it got approved today.
My PD was dec 2005. eb3. India.
Thought i would share with you all.:)
How is that even possible. How were you able to file with a Dec 2005 EB3 India PD in June 2007 when they were only accepting applications with PD of June 2003 for Eb3 India?????
I am happy to share with you all that I applied my 485 on 1 week of June and it got approved today.
My PD was dec 2005. eb3. India.
Thought i would share with you all.:)
How is that even possible. How were you able to file with a Dec 2005 EB3 India PD in June 2007 when they were only accepting applications with PD of June 2003 for Eb3 India?????
more...
GCSOON-Ihope
08-23 10:50 AM
:) I have a pending I-485 dated May/2003, my LC PD is May/2002.. I'm EB3 world... and I was looking at my receipt notice (I-485) and the priority date box is blank. How am I sure that USCIS actually knows that my PD is May/2002 ?? Should that info appear in the proper box?? or they just know it when they entry it in the system as my LC was sent with the application? Please let me know if I should remind them or it's is just a waste of time as they already know it. Last time I called they told me that everything was ok with my file and that they were just wating for a visa number.
Thanks in advance for any help. :D
My PD is 01/2002, so you can imagine what I felt when the September bulletin was out (I am EB3 world with 485 already filed 08/2004)!
Now, I just called USCIS and they confirmed to me that indeed the Priority Date shows only on I-140, not I-485, so eveything is OK! Don't worry and be happy!
Thanks in advance for any help. :D
My PD is 01/2002, so you can imagine what I felt when the September bulletin was out (I am EB3 world with 485 already filed 08/2004)!
Now, I just called USCIS and they confirmed to me that indeed the Priority Date shows only on I-140, not I-485, so eveything is OK! Don't worry and be happy!
Tazike
06-27 09:44 PM
I read an answer written by an immigration lawyer about this type of situation and according to him once the divorce is final the conditional green card is invalid effective that day. That means that the immigrant spouse becomes out of status and would lose her right to work. Because of this the immigrant spouse should apply for a waiver right away once the divorce is final. Staying here and working while being out of status can cause problems of its own.
It's generally true that getting divorced does not affect one's green card. The exception however is when a person has a conditional marriage based green card and gets divorced before the conditions are removed.
It's generally true that getting divorced does not affect one's green card. The exception however is when a person has a conditional marriage based green card and gets divorced before the conditions are removed.
more...
FinalGC
04-14 08:57 AM
Guys:
All who have incorrect details on parents passport for visitor visa....all you may need is an affidavit during application to B1 visa. Since the parents record does not matter in India.
However, if you have not filed your 485 yet, then I encourage all to make the corrections related to your spouses birthday, name and whatever is needed, otherwise u will get an unnecessary RFE.
My wife's mother's name, father's name and her birth location was all messed up in her passport, between the birth certificate and parents passport. By God's grace I was able to correct all of it, after pleading at Indian Consulate and running between various courts in India......It is a time consuming effort, but looking back i am glad I did that...since now my wife's records are all accurate and were corrected before we filed 485.
All who have incorrect details on parents passport for visitor visa....all you may need is an affidavit during application to B1 visa. Since the parents record does not matter in India.
However, if you have not filed your 485 yet, then I encourage all to make the corrections related to your spouses birthday, name and whatever is needed, otherwise u will get an unnecessary RFE.
My wife's mother's name, father's name and her birth location was all messed up in her passport, between the birth certificate and parents passport. By God's grace I was able to correct all of it, after pleading at Indian Consulate and running between various courts in India......It is a time consuming effort, but looking back i am glad I did that...since now my wife's records are all accurate and were corrected before we filed 485.
burnt
04-08 12:10 PM
Friends - Thanks for your help on this one. After getting suggestions from you guys, I did call my lawyer too. He asked me to go back to the airport and Submit my I-94 and related docs to the CBP department there.
After that I called the CBP Customer care for NJ at (703) 526-4200 and the rep asked me to go to CBP website and asked me to mail the I-94 to the address written there. Here is the link for your reference. Alo in this website, it says clearly, DO NOT submit to any other CBP office other than the address mentioned.
http://help.cbp.gov/cgi-bin/customs.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=752&p_created=1077641280&p_sid=RGQ8g3Hh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9OCZwX3Byb2RzPTAmcF9jYXRzPTAmcF9wdj0mcF9 jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX 3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PUktOTQ*&p_li=&p_topview=1
I don't understand why the lawyer suggested me to physically go to the Airport to submit my I-94.
After that I called the CBP Customer care for NJ at (703) 526-4200 and the rep asked me to go to CBP website and asked me to mail the I-94 to the address written there. Here is the link for your reference. Alo in this website, it says clearly, DO NOT submit to any other CBP office other than the address mentioned.
http://help.cbp.gov/cgi-bin/customs.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=752&p_created=1077641280&p_sid=RGQ8g3Hh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9OCZwX3Byb2RzPTAmcF9jYXRzPTAmcF9wdj0mcF9 jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX 3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PUktOTQ*&p_li=&p_topview=1
I don't understand why the lawyer suggested me to physically go to the Airport to submit my I-94.
more...
ivjobs
11-06 06:44 PM
I dont wish to make this a publicity forum for companies or individuals, But it would be heartening to know about other successful entrepreneurs who have been in the similar shoe of this immigration mess. It would be nice if IV members can post their successful ventures in the yahoo group and inspire other members. Please refrain to advertise but feel free to share your experience as an entrepreneur and your successful ventures in the yahoo group.
vbkris77
04-13 11:06 PM
Here is the extract from Immigration and naturalization act. It is as clear as mud.. But most lawyers interpret the way we said in my previous post at least for kids born in USA.
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9fef57852dc066cfe16a4cb81683 8a4
(b) Rules for Chargeability. - Each independent country, self-governing dominion, mandated territory, and territory under the international trusteeship system of the United Nations, other than the United States and its outlying possessions, shall be treated as a separate foreign state for the purposes of a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) when approved by the Secretary of State. All other inhabited lands shall be attributed to a foreign state specified by the Secretary of State. F or the purposes of this Act the foreign state to which an immigrant is chargeable shall be determined by birth within such foreign state except that-
(1) an alien child, when accompanied by or following to join his alien parent or parents, may be charged to the foreign state of either parent if such parent has received or would be qualified for an immigrant visa, if necessary to prevent the separation of the child from the parent or parents, and if immigration charged to the foreign state to which such parent has been or would be chargeable has not reached a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) for that fiscal year;
(2) if an alien is chargeable to a different foreign state from that of his spouse, the foreign state to which such alien is chargeable may, if necessary to prevent the separation of husband and wife, be determined by the foreign state of the spouse he is accompanying or following to join, if such spouse has received or would be qualified for an immigrant visa and if immigration charged to the foreign state to which such spouse has been or would be chargeable has not reached a numerical level estab lished under subsection (a)(2) for that fiscal year; (3) an alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject, or, if he is not a citizen or subject of any country, in the last foreign country in which he had his residence as determined by the consular officer; and (4) an alien born within any foreign state in which neither of his parents was born and in which neither of his parents had a residence at the time of such alien's birth may be charged to the foreign state of either parent.
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9fef57852dc066cfe16a4cb81683 8a4
(b) Rules for Chargeability. - Each independent country, self-governing dominion, mandated territory, and territory under the international trusteeship system of the United Nations, other than the United States and its outlying possessions, shall be treated as a separate foreign state for the purposes of a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) when approved by the Secretary of State. All other inhabited lands shall be attributed to a foreign state specified by the Secretary of State. F or the purposes of this Act the foreign state to which an immigrant is chargeable shall be determined by birth within such foreign state except that-
(1) an alien child, when accompanied by or following to join his alien parent or parents, may be charged to the foreign state of either parent if such parent has received or would be qualified for an immigrant visa, if necessary to prevent the separation of the child from the parent or parents, and if immigration charged to the foreign state to which such parent has been or would be chargeable has not reached a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) for that fiscal year;
(2) if an alien is chargeable to a different foreign state from that of his spouse, the foreign state to which such alien is chargeable may, if necessary to prevent the separation of husband and wife, be determined by the foreign state of the spouse he is accompanying or following to join, if such spouse has received or would be qualified for an immigrant visa and if immigration charged to the foreign state to which such spouse has been or would be chargeable has not reached a numerical level estab lished under subsection (a)(2) for that fiscal year; (3) an alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject, or, if he is not a citizen or subject of any country, in the last foreign country in which he had his residence as determined by the consular officer; and (4) an alien born within any foreign state in which neither of his parents was born and in which neither of his parents had a residence at the time of such alien's birth may be charged to the foreign state of either parent.
more...
desi485
03-24 02:19 PM
Now everything is queued..... no more cutting lines.
no more lc substitution!!! isnt' this was already done last year??? :confused:
were you sleeping? why there is a sudden new thread today?
no more lc substitution!!! isnt' this was already done last year??? :confused:
were you sleeping? why there is a sudden new thread today?
sobers
07-26 03:24 PM
Guess I've lot track of time now too
:)
anyway its going to be important to keep an eye on bills like these given that CIR is not going anywhere, and SKIL is not looking too good either. the 20,000advanced degree H1B exemption was introduced in the 2004-05 Omnibus Appropriations bill. maybe we can get a few simple administrative provisions like 485 filing in some bill.
I mean last year they got the real ID provisions in the iraq spending bill. this is not anywhere as controversial as that, but we we need the will to get this through. maybe we can have a fundraising effort for just this purpose...i'm sure lots of folks would join in..
I know you guys are doing your best under the present circumstances...
:)
anyway its going to be important to keep an eye on bills like these given that CIR is not going anywhere, and SKIL is not looking too good either. the 20,000advanced degree H1B exemption was introduced in the 2004-05 Omnibus Appropriations bill. maybe we can get a few simple administrative provisions like 485 filing in some bill.
I mean last year they got the real ID provisions in the iraq spending bill. this is not anywhere as controversial as that, but we we need the will to get this through. maybe we can have a fundraising effort for just this purpose...i'm sure lots of folks would join in..
I know you guys are doing your best under the present circumstances...
more...
starseed
07-20 06:10 PM
LOL! I did that already in May and the Local office IO was so incredibly RUDE and unhelpful. She told me absolutely nothing other than confusing me by saying my application was being processed on the East Coast and it would be another 3 months or so....... Bet she was just looking at the "EAC" in my receipt # to come up with "East Coast". I confirmed today it is definitely at TSC.
DDash
10-27 10:18 PM
Folks - everyday I go to sleep I wish that tomorrow the sun will rise in the west. When I wake up I see that nothing has changed.
Why do you wish that Sun should rise in the west??? :eek:
Why do you wish that Sun should rise in the west??? :eek:
more...
jliechty
May 28th, 2007, 09:24 PM
Visible Dust products used to cost way more than they were worth (they're still expensive, but not as prohibitive as they were previously). At that time, I found this article (http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/a_Brush_Your_Sensor/a_Brush_Your_Sensor.html?page=1), which offers a much less expensive suggestion. It could be worth checking out if you want to try a brush almost identical to the VD products without paying their high prices (a bit of "elbow grease" is required - just be careful to keep it off the sensor!). ;)
Alabama04
12-12 11:43 AM
I am in Birmingham. Count me in.
PD: Jan 04 EB3/RIR/PBEC/AL
Labor: March 07
I-140: April 19, 07 (Regular)
I-485: June 27,07
Finger Printing: Aug 3,07
AP: Sept 07
RFE: Oct 10,07
GC: Still waiting:(
PD: Jan 04 EB3/RIR/PBEC/AL
Labor: March 07
I-140: April 19, 07 (Regular)
I-485: June 27,07
Finger Printing: Aug 3,07
AP: Sept 07
RFE: Oct 10,07
GC: Still waiting:(
more...
kshitijnt
04-18 06:55 PM
Today my wifes attorney informed her that her H1 was selected, non masters, non premium process. He also provided her a WAC number
bobzibub
05-15 12:50 PM
1) Backlog breeds backlogs.
- Long processing times means that related things must get renewed. For instance, if you are waiting for an I-140, you have to renew the h-1b because the I-140 processing takes so long. This creates unnecessary extra work load for USCIS. They need to address work flow issues and legal issues to streamline the process.
2) If Americans waited five years for a driver's license or a building permit because of a quota, they'd have a second revolution.
3) USCIS is so busy that we believe that they use Requests for Evidence as workload management. Send an RFE if you can't get to it. This creates more work.
4) When we are waiting for these backlogs to clear, we need company's lawyers to change jobs. This places undue burdens upon prospective employers and restricts to larger firms. Labor mobility is important for wage levels to increase. Often someone gets a job and waits for many years to get another one. In many sectors of the economy, the job market can fluctuate leaving the employee in a position with a previous cycle's wage level.
5) We miss our freedom. (The irony!) Being locked into this process limits our ability to be able to contract with a business associate to do things on the side. For a computer guy, that hurts. Plus, if we are not legally allowed to work (waiting for USCIS), we should be able to volunteer. Volunteer work is a tradition for Americans, why not us too?
6) Countries compete for a limited pool of skilled labor. Countries subsidize training to increase their skilled labor pools. Should our issues not get resolved, many of us will leave for better deals in other lands. The economic question the US should consider is: Are more skilled workers better for an economy or are less skilled workers better for the economy? Clearly the answer is more skilled workers. What country would want less skilled workers? There are significant economic advantages to having skilled workers in an economy that overwhelm any wage rate influences. The people who founded many of Silicon Valley's giants were immigrants and have created countless jobs.
There are issues with training native IT professionals, but that is separate to immigrants. We have benefited from our training and we do agree to the need to train and re-train. But policy is not of our making and we should not be blamed for it. Introduce a subsidy for training, but do not blame foreigners for those policy issues.
7) Many attempt to pit the US low skilled worker against the low skilled immigrants. Also they attempt to pit the US high skilled US worker against the high skilled immigrants. It is simply a matter of "divide and conquer" for political ends. Because immigrants do not make policy, Americans do. It is unfair to blame immigrants for US policy.
- Long processing times means that related things must get renewed. For instance, if you are waiting for an I-140, you have to renew the h-1b because the I-140 processing takes so long. This creates unnecessary extra work load for USCIS. They need to address work flow issues and legal issues to streamline the process.
2) If Americans waited five years for a driver's license or a building permit because of a quota, they'd have a second revolution.
3) USCIS is so busy that we believe that they use Requests for Evidence as workload management. Send an RFE if you can't get to it. This creates more work.
4) When we are waiting for these backlogs to clear, we need company's lawyers to change jobs. This places undue burdens upon prospective employers and restricts to larger firms. Labor mobility is important for wage levels to increase. Often someone gets a job and waits for many years to get another one. In many sectors of the economy, the job market can fluctuate leaving the employee in a position with a previous cycle's wage level.
5) We miss our freedom. (The irony!) Being locked into this process limits our ability to be able to contract with a business associate to do things on the side. For a computer guy, that hurts. Plus, if we are not legally allowed to work (waiting for USCIS), we should be able to volunteer. Volunteer work is a tradition for Americans, why not us too?
6) Countries compete for a limited pool of skilled labor. Countries subsidize training to increase their skilled labor pools. Should our issues not get resolved, many of us will leave for better deals in other lands. The economic question the US should consider is: Are more skilled workers better for an economy or are less skilled workers better for the economy? Clearly the answer is more skilled workers. What country would want less skilled workers? There are significant economic advantages to having skilled workers in an economy that overwhelm any wage rate influences. The people who founded many of Silicon Valley's giants were immigrants and have created countless jobs.
There are issues with training native IT professionals, but that is separate to immigrants. We have benefited from our training and we do agree to the need to train and re-train. But policy is not of our making and we should not be blamed for it. Introduce a subsidy for training, but do not blame foreigners for those policy issues.
7) Many attempt to pit the US low skilled worker against the low skilled immigrants. Also they attempt to pit the US high skilled US worker against the high skilled immigrants. It is simply a matter of "divide and conquer" for political ends. Because immigrants do not make policy, Americans do. It is unfair to blame immigrants for US policy.
rb_248
06-04 09:51 AM
Monday, June 4, 2007
2:30 p.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
Thereafter, resume consideration of S. 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.
Morning business @ 2:30 p.m. ??
2:30 p.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
Thereafter, resume consideration of S. 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.
Morning business @ 2:30 p.m. ??
WeShallOvercome
12-13 01:59 AM
It depends on the terms of the contract.
I think Washington is an "At Will" employment state, so no matter what a contract says, its pretty much !#*$. I'd do some research if I were you -google, get some state specific employment law advice, check your employee handbook etc.
At Will means that either side (employer or employee) can end a contract at any point, AFAIK
Employee handbook should spell it out. I guess they "could" force you to use your PTO - don't know of the legality in that.
Just my opinion, not legal advice:o
Quick search online got this:-
At Will
In Washington, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it is not illegal. Generally, employees that work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In Washington, in order to overcome the at-will presumption, an employee must show that the employer made clear and unequivocal statements of job security to the employee.
The most common exception to employment-at will is for public policy. This holds that an employee is wrongfully discharged if the termination is counter to an explicit policy of the government. One example is the discharge of an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim.
Employee Handbooks
While an employer is not required by law to have an employee handbook, in most cases, it is recommended. An employee handbook provides a centralized, complete and certain record of the employer's policies and procedures. It also provides more convenient access by employees and managers. At a minimum, an employee handbook should include:
* A statement regarding the at-will employment relationship
* An equal employment opportunity statement
* A policy regarding sexual and other types of harassment in the workplace
* Internet access, e-mail, and voice mail policies
* The Family Medical Leave Act
In Washington, in limited circumstances, the at-will presumption can be overcome and a just-cause employment relationship can be created by an employee's legitimate expectations that are grounded in an employer's policy statements. The employee has to show that the employer, through the employee manual or otherwise, made representations or promises that termination would be only for just cause.
The laws regarding an employer's duties and responsibilities arising under an employee handbook are complex, and a licensed attorney should be contacted to review individual circumstances.
Thanks franklin,
My concern here is that IF I want to leave my employer without having to pay the 'damages' , Can I do that in case they are not able to find me a project in my state of residence (I have a house here in WA). I don't think they can force me to stay unpaid just so I don't break their agreement.
Also from the USCIS point of view, how safe or risky is it to be in this situation where the employer is not able to find any work for you just 1.5 months after GC approval? I can easily find work here, but if I can use this to get out of the agreement, I don't mind being unpaid for a few days...
I've heard some cases where the employee forced the employer to release him from all contractual obligations because employer wasn't able to pay him when he was willing to work..
btw, it's nice to be able to attach some face to a handle... I remember you from the DC rally day.
I think Washington is an "At Will" employment state, so no matter what a contract says, its pretty much !#*$. I'd do some research if I were you -google, get some state specific employment law advice, check your employee handbook etc.
At Will means that either side (employer or employee) can end a contract at any point, AFAIK
Employee handbook should spell it out. I guess they "could" force you to use your PTO - don't know of the legality in that.
Just my opinion, not legal advice:o
Quick search online got this:-
At Will
In Washington, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it is not illegal. Generally, employees that work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In Washington, in order to overcome the at-will presumption, an employee must show that the employer made clear and unequivocal statements of job security to the employee.
The most common exception to employment-at will is for public policy. This holds that an employee is wrongfully discharged if the termination is counter to an explicit policy of the government. One example is the discharge of an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim.
Employee Handbooks
While an employer is not required by law to have an employee handbook, in most cases, it is recommended. An employee handbook provides a centralized, complete and certain record of the employer's policies and procedures. It also provides more convenient access by employees and managers. At a minimum, an employee handbook should include:
* A statement regarding the at-will employment relationship
* An equal employment opportunity statement
* A policy regarding sexual and other types of harassment in the workplace
* Internet access, e-mail, and voice mail policies
* The Family Medical Leave Act
In Washington, in limited circumstances, the at-will presumption can be overcome and a just-cause employment relationship can be created by an employee's legitimate expectations that are grounded in an employer's policy statements. The employee has to show that the employer, through the employee manual or otherwise, made representations or promises that termination would be only for just cause.
The laws regarding an employer's duties and responsibilities arising under an employee handbook are complex, and a licensed attorney should be contacted to review individual circumstances.
Thanks franklin,
My concern here is that IF I want to leave my employer without having to pay the 'damages' , Can I do that in case they are not able to find me a project in my state of residence (I have a house here in WA). I don't think they can force me to stay unpaid just so I don't break their agreement.
Also from the USCIS point of view, how safe or risky is it to be in this situation where the employer is not able to find any work for you just 1.5 months after GC approval? I can easily find work here, but if I can use this to get out of the agreement, I don't mind being unpaid for a few days...
I've heard some cases where the employee forced the employer to release him from all contractual obligations because employer wasn't able to pay him when he was willing to work..
btw, it's nice to be able to attach some face to a handle... I remember you from the DC rally day.
mashu
05-28 04:58 PM
Hi everybody,
please help - the lawyer filed the original EAD/AP applications.
Now I want to renew it myself - Should I fill an additional form (G - something for changing representation)
if I am filing paper EAD/AP forms???
Thanks....
please help - the lawyer filed the original EAD/AP applications.
Now I want to renew it myself - Should I fill an additional form (G - something for changing representation)
if I am filing paper EAD/AP forms???
Thanks....
No comments:
Post a Comment