DOJ Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative: All Settlements Tracker (2025–2026)

DOJ Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative: Complete Settlement Tracker (2025–2026)

The U.S. Department of Justice relaunched its Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative in January 2025 under the Trump administration — and in less than fourteen months, the program has produced eleven settlements and over $600,000 in civil penalties against employers who discriminated against U.S. workers and other legally authorized individuals in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act's anti-discrimination provision (8 U.S.C. § 1324b).

This tracker documents every settlement since re-launch — who settled, when, how much, and what the violation was. It also provides pattern analysis, explains the four types of violations the initiative targets, and identifies what the enforcement trajectory means for employers heading into the rest of 2026.

Bookmark this page. We update it as new settlements are announced.

The Initiative: What It Is and Why It Was Re-Launched

Background

The Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative is an enforcement program operated by the DOJ's Immigrant and Employee Rights (IER) Section, which enforces 8 U.S.C. § 1324b — the INA's anti-discrimination provision. The initiative specifically targets employers who discriminate against U.S. workers and other work-authorized individuals in favor of foreign visa-sponsored workers.

The initiative was first launched in 2017 under the first Trump administration as part of broader immigration enforcement priorities. It was effectively wound down during the Biden administration, with enforcement activity under § 1324b becoming more limited. The initiative was formally re-launched in January 2025 under the second Trump administration, with explicit statements from DOJ leadership that protecting American workers from displacement by foreign visa holders would be an enforcement priority.

The Legal Foundation: 8 U.S.C. § 1324b

INA § 1324b prohibits employers from discriminating against protected individuals based on citizenship status or national origin in:

• Hiring decisions
• Termination decisions
• Recruitment and referral for a fee

Protected individuals include:

• U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals
• Lawful permanent residents (LPRs / green card holders)
• Refugees with work authorization
• Asylees with work authorization
• Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders

The law applies to employers with four or more employees — a threshold low enough to cover virtually every company that participates in the U.S. labor market.

Civil penalties range from approximately $218–$27,584 per person discriminated against, depending on whether it is a first, second, or subsequent offense.

All Settlements: Complete Tracker Table

Total documented penalties (monetary): Over $559,000 in civil penalties + $18,000 in back pay, with additional settlements involving training-and-policy-only remedies.

Total settlements: 11 since January 2025 re-launch.

Pattern Analysis: What the Data Reveals

1. IT Staffing Dominates — But Not Exclusively

Six of eleven settlements directly involve IT staffing, technology recruiting, or technology consulting firms. The concentration reflects the structural dynamics of the industry: H-1B workers are economically preferable to IT staffing firms because sponsored workers are bound to their employer, creating more controllable placement relationships than U.S. citizen employees who are free to work for anyone.

However, the initiative is clearly not limited to the technology sector:

• Agriculture: H2A Complete II demonstrates that agricultural labor agents face the same enforcement exposure as IT staffing firms
• Retail: Nuts.com proves that consumer brands are not immune
• Laboratories/manufacturing: Jonal Laboratories shows enforcement across technical industries

Employers in any sector that uses visa-sponsored workers — or that has non-standard I-9 procedures — should treat the initiative as relevant to their compliance program.

2. The Four Violation Types

The eleven settlements reveal four distinct legal mechanisms through which § 1324b violations occur:

Type 1: Job Ad Discrimination (7 of 11 cases) The most common violation: posting job advertisements that explicitly restrict applicants by H-1B status, other visa types, or citizenship category. Applies to: Epik Solutions, TekisHub, Tekshapers, Nitya Software, Intellicept, Natsoft, and Elegant Enterprise.

Type 2: Verbal/Oral Discrimination (1 case, component of TekisHub) Verbal statements to a job seeker confirming H-1B preference independent of the written job ads. Drove the largest penalty in the initiative ($200,000 for TekisHub). Any recruiter communication — phone call, email, text — that expresses citizenship-status preferences is potential § 1324b evidence.

Type 3: Documentary Practices (2 of 11 cases) Demanding more or different I-9 documents from lawful permanent residents than from U.S. citizens. Applies to: NYX Inc. and Nuts.com. This violation affects every employer that processes Form I-9 — including food retailers, manufacturers, healthcare providers, and any other non-tech employer. Potentially the most widespread under-recognized compliance risk in the initiative.

Type 4: Over-Restriction (1 case) Limiting positions to U.S. citizens and LPRs without legal justification, thereby excluding refugees, asylees, and TPS holders who are equally protected. Applies to: Jonal Laboratories. The "citizens and green card holders only" policy that many employers assume is conservative compliance is actually a § 1324b violation.

Type 5: Agent Liability (1 case, component of Nitya) Employer held liable for discriminatory job ads posted by a third-party recruiter acting on its behalf. Applies to: Nitya Software Solutions. Outsourcing job posting to vendors does not outsource § 1324b compliance obligations.

Type 6: Requirement Inflation (1 case, component of H2A Complete II) Adding excessive experience requirements to job orders to screen out qualified U.S. workers in favor of visa holders. A form of pretextual discrimination unique to the agricultural H-2A context but with implications for any industry where job requirements may be manipulated.

3. Penalty Range Reflects Violation Severity

The initiative's penalty range — $4,610 to $200,000 — is not random. It reflects specific aggravating and mitigating factors:

Factors driving higher penalties:

• Large number of discriminatory postings over extended period
• Verbal evidence of discriminatory intent (TekisHub)
• Large number of identified victims
• Multiple distinct violation types (ads + verbal statements)

Factors associated with lower penalties:

• Single posting or limited number of violations
• No evidence of intentional discrimination (procedural error rather than willful exclusion)
• Early cooperation with investigation
• Proactive remediation before settlement

The Jonal Laboratories settlement — which resulted in training and policy revision but no disclosed financial penalty — may reflect particularly strong cooperation and swift remediation. Employers who respond immediately and cooperatively when contacted by IER investigators can influence the penalty outcome.

4. Geographic Concentration: New Jersey

Multiple settlements involve New Jersey-based technology companies: Intellicept (January 2026), Natsoft (January 2026), and others in the broader mid-Atlantic/tri-state market. New Jersey's dense concentration of IT staffing and consulting firms makes it a natural enforcement focus area. However, settlements span the country — from Mississippi (H2A Complete II) to Michigan (Tekshapers) to Delaware (TekisHub) to New Jersey to unnamed national companies.

5. Enforcement Is Accelerating

The pace of settlements increased through the initiative's first year:

• June–July 2025: 2 settlements (5 months in)
• August–September 2025: 2 settlements (2 months)
• October–November 2025: 1 settlement (2 months)
• December 2025: 1 settlement
• January 1–6, 2026: 3 settlements in 2 days

The January 2026 cluster — three settlements in two business days — signals that the IER Section has built an enforcement pipeline capable of closing multiple cases simultaneously. If this pace continues, 2026 will produce substantially more settlements than 2025's seven.

What All Settlements Have in Common

Every Protecting U.S. Workers settlement since January 2025 includes at least the following remedial components beyond financial penalties:

Anti-Discrimination Training

Every settlement requires that the employer implement anti-discrimination training for staff involved in hiring, recruiting, and HR. Training must cover:

• The scope and requirements of § 1324b
• The protected classes (U.S. citizens, LPRs, refugees, asylees, TPS holders)
• Prohibited job ad language and discriminatory practices
• Compliant I-9 document collection procedures (relevant for documentary practices violations)

The DOJ's IER Section offers free employer training resources that count toward this requirement.

Policy Revision

Every settlement requires revision of company policies, job posting procedures, and internal guidelines to eliminate discriminatory practices and establish written anti-discrimination standards.

Job Posting Audit and Revision

Employers must audit existing job postings and revise or remove any content that contains citizenship-status restrictions or discriminatory language.

DOJ Monitoring

Every settlement includes a monitoring period — typically one to three years — during which the IER Section retains authority to review the employer's job postings, training records, and compliance certifications.

No Retaliation Provisions

Every settlement explicitly protects employees who reported the discrimination or cooperated with the investigation from any form of retaliation.

What's Next: Enforcement Trajectory for 2026

More Settlements Coming

Based on the January 2026 enforcement cluster and the pace established in 2025, additional settlements throughout 2026 are highly likely. The IER Section has demonstrated investigative capacity and enforcement momentum. Employers who have not yet audited their job postings should do so immediately — the next wave of enforcement is in progress.

Focus on AI Job Advertising

A key emerging enforcement area not yet fully captured in the 2025 settlements: AI-assisted job advertising. As employers use AI tools to generate job descriptions, target candidates on job boards, and filter applicant pools, the risk of AI-generated or AI-assisted citizenship-status discrimination increases.

The 2022 DHI Group / Dice.com settlement established that algorithmic job ad targeting that excludes U.S. workers violates § 1324b. As AI-generated job ads become standard practice, employers whose AI tools incorporate H-1B preferences or citizenship-status filters face the same liability as employers who manually write discriminatory ads. Regulators are watching.

Expansion Beyond IT Staffing

The 2025 settlements already show expansion beyond IT staffing into agriculture (H2A Complete II) and retail (Nuts.com). As the IER Section's enforcement infrastructure grows, additional industry sectors are likely to become targets — particularly employers in healthcare, construction, manufacturing, and agriculture who regularly employ H-2A workers or who have non-standard I-9 practices.

Elevated Penalty Expectations

The trajectory of penalties suggests that repeat violators or companies with particularly egregious patterns — systematic discrimination over many years, multiple violation types, explicit verbal evidence of intent — should expect penalties substantially higher than the $200,000 TekisHub record. As the IER Section's enforcement record accumulates, the "baseline" for penalty calculations may shift upward.

The Four Compliance Risks: What Every Employer Must Address

Risk 1: Discriminatory Job Ads

Who is exposed: Any employer that posts job ads containing citizenship-status or visa-status restrictions.

Fix: Audit all active and recent job postings. Remove H-1B-only, OPT/CPT, visa-status, and citizenship-category restrictions without documented legal justification. Implement pre-publication review for new ads.

Risk 2: I-9 Documentary Practices

Who is exposed: Any employer that has non-standard I-9 procedures — requiring specific documents from LPRs or other non-citizens while allowing U.S. citizens to present documents of their choice.

Fix: Review I-9 procedures and onboarding materials. Ensure all employees are allowed to present documents of their own choosing from the acceptable lists. Train every person who completes I-9 forms.

Risk 3: Over-Restriction

Who is exposed: Any employer with "U.S. citizens and permanent residents only" policies without documented legal authority.

Fix: Replace "citizens and LPRs only" language with "must be authorized to work in the United States." Ensure that any genuine citizenship restriction is supported by specific documented legal authority (government contract, security clearance requirement, applicable statute).

Risk 4: Third-Party Recruiter Liability

Who is exposed: Any employer using outside recruiting firms, staffing vendors, or RPO providers to post job ads.

Fix: Include § 1324b compliance representations in all recruiting vendor contracts. Require pre-publication review of vendor job ads. Provide approved job ad templates. Monitor vendor postings on job boards.

Individual Settlement Articles

For in-depth analysis of each settlement — including legal framework, penalty calculation, compliance lessons, and FAQs — read our individual articles:

• Epik Solutions: $71,916 — First settlement of the re-launched initiative
• H2A Complete II: $25,000 — Agriculture sector, agent liability, requirement inflation
• NYX Inc.: $92,500 — I-9 documentary practices discrimination against LPRs
• Nuts.com: $60,000 — Consumer brand, I-9 documentary practices
• TekisHub Consulting: $200,000 — Largest penalty; job ads + verbal statements
• Jonal Laboratories: Training only — Citizens/LPRs-only over-restriction
• Tekshapers Inc.: $47,000 + $18,000 back pay — Back pay means real identified victim
• Intellicept Inc.: $4,610 — Single posting; no minimum threshold
• Nitya Software Solutions: $40,000 — Third-party recruiter liability
• Natsoft Corporation: $18,440 — January 2026 enforcement wave

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative?

The Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative is an enforcement program run by the DOJ's Immigrant and Employee Rights (IER) Section targeting employers who discriminate against U.S. workers and other work-authorized individuals in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. It was originally launched in 2017, wound down during the Biden administration, and was re-launched in January 2025.

How does the DOJ find companies violating § 1324b?

Most investigations begin with a charge filed by a worker who was excluded by a discriminatory job ad or I-9 practice. Workers file charges through the DOJ's IER employer hotline (1-800-255-8155) within 180 days of the discriminatory act. The IER Section may also monitor job boards proactively and receive referrals from other agencies or advocacy organizations.

Does § 1324b apply to my company?

If your company has four or more employees and hires anyone in the United States, yes. The citizenship status discrimination provisions cover virtually every employer in the country.

What is the fastest way to assess our § 1324b exposure?

Step 1: Search your active job postings for H-1B, OPT, CPT, visa, citizenship, or work authorization language. Step 2: Review your I-9 procedures for differential document requirements. Step 3: Check whether any job ads or policies restrict hiring to "citizens and permanent residents only." Step 4: Review your recruiting vendor contracts for § 1324b compliance provisions.

Can we call the DOJ with compliance questions?

Yes. The IER Section operates a free employer hotline at 1-800-255-8155 where you can get guidance on § 1324b compliance without triggering an investigation. The hotline handles both employer questions and worker discrimination reports.

What happens if we discover we've been violating § 1324b?

Consult employment counsel immediately. Document the scope of the violation. Correct the practice. Preserve records. Consider whether voluntary disclosure to IER is advisable given the circumstances. Early cooperation and proactive remediation are typically mitigating factors in penalty determinations.

Are there § 1324b cases before 2025 we should know about?

Yes. The most significant pre-2025 case for digital employers is the DHI Group / Dice.com settlement (2022), in which Dice.com paid $186,334 for its job ad algorithm that excluded U.S. workers from technology job postings. This case established that algorithmic job ad targeting is subject to § 1324b. See our full AI Hiring Lawsuits tracker for the broader enforcement landscape.

The Compliance Imperative

Eleven settlements in fourteen months. Over $600,000 in penalties. Training and policy revision requirements imposed on every settling company. DOJ monitoring stretching years into the future.

The Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative is not a theoretical risk for future consideration. It is an active, accelerating enforcement program targeting a broad range of employers across multiple industries. The companies that settled in 2025–2026 are not uniquely bad actors — they are companies that hadn't audited their job postings, whose I-9 procedures hadn't been updated in years, or whose recruiting vendors posted ads without legal review.

The companies that will settle in 2026–2027 are the ones that read this article and still didn't act.

EmployArmor monitors your job postings, I-9 procedures, and recruiting vendor practices against the full spectrum of § 1324b compliance requirements — job ad discrimination, documentary practices, over-restriction, and third-party liability. Our platform generates the audit documentation that demonstrates a proactive compliance program when the DOJ comes looking. Get your free compliance assessment →

Last updated: March 2026. This tracker will be updated as new settlements are announced. This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult qualified employment and immigration counsel for guidance specific to your situation.