Nuts.com DOJ Settlement: $60,000 for Discriminating Against Green Card Holders

Nuts.com DOJ Settlement: When a Consumer Brand Proves § 1324b Applies to Every Employer

On September 19, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a $60,000 civil penalty settlement with Nuts.com — one of the most recognizable consumer food retail brands in the United States. Nuts.com is best known for selling bulk nuts, dried fruits, and snacks online; it is not a technology company, not a staffing firm, and not an immigration-heavy industry. And yet it paid $60,000 for violating the Immigration and Nationality Act's anti-discrimination provision.

That's the headline: even Nuts.com got sued.

The violation was straightforward: Nuts.com required lawful permanent residents to present specific documentation during Form I-9 verification, while allowing U.S. citizens to present documents of their own choosing. That differential treatment — more burdensome document demands for LPRs than for U.S. citizens — is a textbook § 1324b documentary practices violation.

The Nuts.com case is the single most important case in the 2025 Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative for employers outside the technology sector. If you run a retail business, a restaurant chain, a manufacturing facility, or any other company that hires American workers and completes Form I-9, this case is directly about you.

Who Is Nuts.com?

Nuts.com is a direct-to-consumer food retailer founded in 1929 (originally as Setton International Foods) and operating under the Nuts.com brand since 2011. The company sells nuts, dried fruits, spices, granola, and specialty foods online and through retail channels. Based in Cranford, New Jersey, the company employs warehouse staff, customer service representatives, food processing workers, and corporate employees — a diverse workforce representative of the broader U.S. labor market.

Nuts.com is not in a visa-heavy industry. It does not recruit primarily from H-1B visa programs or agricultural guest worker programs. It is not a staffing company placing candidates at client sites. It is a food retailer that hires people to pick, pack, and ship snacks.

And it paid $60,000 for I-9 discrimination.

Why This Case Matters for Non-Tech Employers

The overwhelming majority of § 1324b enforcement coverage focuses on IT staffing companies and their H-1B job ad practices. This focus is justified by the data — IT staffing firms represent the largest share of § 1324b violations by number of cases. But that focus can mislead non-tech employers into believing the law doesn't affect them.

The Nuts.com case is a direct refutation of that assumption. The documentary practices provision of § 1324b applies to every employer who completes Form I-9 — and every employer in the United States is required to complete Form I-9 for every new hire.

If your company hires anyone, you are subject to § 1324b documentary practices requirements. If your I-9 process treats LPRs differently than U.S. citizens — even without any intent to discriminate — you can be held liable.

The Violation: Differential Document Treatment During I-9

The DOJ's investigation found that Nuts.com implemented a differential document verification policy:

U.S. citizens: Allowed to present documents of their own choosing from the I-9 acceptable documents lists

Lawful permanent residents: Required to present specific documentation designated by Nuts.com

This is the precise violation prohibited by § 1324b's documentary practices provision. Employees have the right to choose which acceptable documents they present; employers do not have the right to specify which documents particular categories of employees must provide.

The Specific Likely Scenario

While the DOJ's press release does not detail the exact document demands Nuts.com imposed, the most common documentary practices violation in retail and food industry employers involves requiring green card holders to present their Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) — the physical "green card" — in addition to or instead of other acceptable documents.

For example, if Nuts.com's onboarding procedures instructed HR staff to collect:

• From U.S. citizens: a U.S. passport, or a driver's license + Social Security card
• From LPRs: their green card (mandatory), not an equivalent List A document like a foreign passport with an I-551 stamp

...that differential requirement would be exactly the violation the settlement describes.

The green card is a List A document — it fully satisfies both identity and work authorization requirements for I-9. An LPR who presents a valid Permanent Resident Card must be accepted as having satisfied I-9 requirements without any additional documents. An LPR who wants to present a valid unexpired foreign passport with an I-551 stamp (another acceptable List A document) must also be accepted. The employer cannot insist on the green card specifically.

§ 1324b's Documentary Practices Provision

The Statutory Text

8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(6) prohibits employers from "requesting more or different documents than are required under subsection (b), or refusing to honor documents tendered that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine, or refusing to accept documents by a person because of their citizenship status or national origin."

This means:

1. No excessive documents: Employers cannot demand more documents than the I-9 requires
2. No document specification by status: Employers cannot designate which documents LPRs, refugees, or other non-citizens must present while giving U.S. citizens free choice
3. No document rejection based on status: Employers cannot refuse to accept facially valid documents because the employee is an LPR rather than a U.S. citizen

The "Reasonably Appear Genuine" Standard

An important note: employers are required to review I-9 documents for obvious signs of fraud, and are not required to accept documents that clearly are not genuine. However, this "anti-fraud" review must be applied consistently regardless of citizenship status — employers cannot apply heightened scrutiny to LPRs' documents while accepting U.S. citizens' documents at face value.

How This Intersects with E-Verify

Employers who use E-Verify may receive Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) notices when employee information does not match government records. The E-Verify TNC process has its own procedural requirements and is separate from the § 1324b documentary practices rules.

Common error: employers who receive TNCs for LPR employees sometimes respond by demanding additional documents — creating a documentary practices violation layered on top of the E-Verify process. E-Verify TNCs must be handled through E-Verify's formal process, not by demanding more I-9 documentation.

The Industries Most Exposed

The Nuts.com case opens the aperture on which employers are most at risk for documentary practices violations. Consider:

Retail and e-commerce: High-volume hiring, decentralized HR, diverse workforce including many LPRs. Onboarding procedures set by corporate HR may not be consistently applied by store or warehouse managers.

Food service and hospitality: Large numbers of LPR and other non-citizen employees. Fast-paced hiring environments where I-9 procedures may be poorly trained or inconsistently applied.

Manufacturing and warehousing: Significant populations of LPRs in production roles. I-9 processes often managed by operations staff rather than dedicated HR professionals.

Healthcare: High-volume hiring across multiple credential types. HR staff who are careful about credential verification may incorrectly apply document verification best practices that violate § 1324b.

Agriculture: In addition to the H-2A specific issues documented in the H2A Complete II case, agricultural employers with mixed domestic and foreign workforces face documentary practices risks.

If your industry involves any of these characteristics — high hiring volume, diverse workforce, decentralized HR operations, or onboarding managed by non-HR staff — documentary practices compliance deserves focused attention.

Comparing NYX Inc. and Nuts.com: Two Sides of the Same Violation

The 2025 Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative produced two documentary practices settlements within a month of each other:

The parallel timing and similar violation types suggest the DOJ's IER Section was actively investigating documentary practices cases as part of the 2025 initiative — not just the more visible H-1B job ad cases. Employers who focus only on job ad compliance while ignoring their I-9 procedures are addressing only part of their § 1324b exposure.

What the Settlement Requires

The Nuts.com settlement imposes financial and operational remediation:

$60,000 civil penalty: Paid to the U.S. Treasury, representing penalties for the discriminatory document demands imposed on LPR employees during the investigation period.

I-9 procedure revision: Nuts.com must revise its Form I-9 procedures to eliminate differential document requirements for LPRs and ensure all employees are allowed to present documents of their own choosing from the acceptable lists.

Anti-discrimination training: HR staff, hiring managers, and anyone involved in the I-9 process must receive training on § 1324b requirements and compliant I-9 procedures.

Policy documentation: Written I-9 procedures must be updated to reflect compliant document practices, and those procedures must be accessible to all staff involved in onboarding.

DOJ monitoring: The IER Section retains authority to review Nuts.com's I-9 practices and procedures during the monitoring period.

What Every Non-Tech Employer Must Do

Immediate Steps

1. Pull your I-9 instruction documents. Review your onboarding checklist, HR training materials, and any written guidance for completing Form I-9. Look for any language that:

• Tells employees which documents they "must" present based on their immigration status
• Requires LPRs to present their green card (rather than any acceptable document)
• Creates different document collection requirements for citizens vs. non-citizens

2. Review your digital onboarding system. If you use an HRIS or onboarding platform with a digital I-9 module, ask your vendor to confirm that the system does not present differentiated document prompts based on immigration status.

3. Check your I-9 audit procedures. Some employers conduct I-9 audits that apply more scrutiny to non-citizen employees' documents. Ensure audit procedures apply consistently regardless of citizenship status.

Training and Process

4. Train everyone who touches I-9. The Nuts.com case almost certainly involved HR staff or warehouse managers who thought they were doing thorough document verification — not realizing that differential procedures violate federal law. Training must reach the people actually completing I-9 forms, not just HR leadership.

5. Post the I-9 acceptable documents list. Ensure the USCIS List of Acceptable Documents is displayed at every I-9 completion station and clearly explains that employees choose which documents to present.

6. Implement a pre-onboarding review. Before your next large hiring cycle, have your I-9 procedures reviewed by employment counsel or a compliance platform that understands § 1324b documentary practices requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did Nuts.com get fined — they're a food retailer, not an immigration law firm?

§ 1324b applies to every employer in the United States with four or more employees — including food retailers, restaurants, manufacturers, healthcare providers, and every other employer who completes Form I-9. The law does not limit its documentary practices protections to industries that actively recruit foreign workers. Any employer that treats LPRs differently than U.S. citizens during I-9 verification is in violation.

What documents should we accept from a green card holder?

A lawful permanent resident who presents a valid Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) has fully satisfied Form I-9 requirements — no additional documents needed. An LPR who presents a foreign passport with a valid temporary I-551 stamp has also fully satisfied Form I-9 requirements. You cannot require the physical green card if the employee presents other acceptable documentation.

Can we require all employees to present two forms of ID?

No. You cannot require employees to present more documents than Form I-9 requires. If an employee presents a U.S. passport (List A), that satisfies both identity and work authorization requirements and you cannot demand additional documents. If an employee presents a driver's license (List B) and Social Security card (List C), the combination satisfies I-9 requirements without additional documents.

What if we're concerned about fraud and want to do enhanced verification for non-citizens?

Fraud detection must be applied consistently regardless of citizenship status. Applying enhanced scrutiny to non-citizens' documents while accepting U.S. citizens' documents at face value is itself a form of documentary discrimination. Train your I-9 processors to apply consistent standards of document review regardless of the employee's background.

Does this settlement mean we need to re-do our employees' I-9 forms?

Not unless your I-9 forms are defective in ways that affect work authorization compliance. What you do need to revise is your I-9 procedure — the instructions you give HR staff and managers about how to collect documents. The existing I-9 forms in your files document what occurred; the settlement is about changing future practices.

What if employees voluntarily offer additional documents?

Employees who want to provide additional documentation beyond what Form I-9 requires are free to do so — but you cannot encourage or require them to present extra documents based on their citizenship status. If an LPR wants to also present their Social Security card, that's their choice. But if your instructions say "LPRs must present their green card AND Social Security card," you've created a documentary practices violation.

How do we know if our HRIS's I-9 module is compliant?

Ask your vendor directly. Request documentation confirming that the I-9 module does not present differentiated document requirements based on immigration status inputs. If the vendor cannot confirm compliance, review the system's employee-facing prompts manually by testing the onboarding flow as different employee types. Consider consulting an employment attorney who specializes in I-9 compliance to review your system configuration.

How do we report suspected I-9 discrimination at another company?

Workers who experience discriminatory document demands during I-9 verification can file a charge with the DOJ's Immigrant and Employee Rights Section at 1-800-255-8155 within 180 days of the discriminatory act. The hotline handles both employer compliance questions and worker discrimination complaints.

Key Takeaways

The Nuts.com case delivers a message that should resonate far beyond the technology sector: § 1324b is a law for every employer. If you complete Form I-9 — and every employer in the United States with four or more employees must — you are subject to the documentary practices provision.

Getting it wrong doesn't require malicious intent. It doesn't require a corporate policy of discrimination. It just requires following an onboarding checklist that treats lawful permanent residents differently than U.S. citizens when collecting I-9 documents. That's enough for a federal civil penalty.

The $60,000 Nuts.com penalty is a fraction of what a systematic documentary practices violation could cost a large employer — one with thousands of LPR employees hired over several years under a discriminatory procedure. Audit your I-9 practices before the DOJ audits them for you.

EmployArmor reviews your Form I-9 procedures and onboarding workflows against § 1324b documentary practices requirements. Our compliance platform catches discriminatory document policies before they generate enforcement exposure — whether you're a tech company, a food retailer, or anything in between. Get your free compliance assessment →

Last updated: March 2026. 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.