DOJ Investigating Space X for Not Breaking The Law and Hiring a Foreign National

[GURPS]

DoJ Investigating Space X for Not Hiring a Foreign National


Space X would have additional requirements related to foreign nationals because of the industry they are in. International Traffic in Arms Regulations applies to the company. These regulations require companies who work with technologies that have defense applications to maintain strict data controls. Security measures include limiting the access of foreign nationals to sensitive technologies. Space X falls under the ITAR because of its rocket and launch technologies:

Intercontinental ballistic missiles and orbital rockets have a lot in common. They rise from the ground, drop empty fuel tanks called boosters, and release their payloads into space. Musk launches satellites in this way. It’s also the way you launch a nuclear warhead across the planet.
To be sure, the science behind these launches are different and they are by no means identical problems for engineers. In other words, it would take a lot of modding to launch a warhead from a Falcon 9. But the rocket stages, engines, and even guidance can inform a ballistic weapons program. So these items are on the ITAR list.

The applicant in question applied for the position of Technology Strategy Associate. While it is not clear what specific data a person in this position would have access to, it implies that he may have access to design and materials information and future product plans. As one compliance website notes:

Understanding ITAR as it relates to your own employees can be a challenge. Imagine you hire someone for your IT department that was born outside the United States. They have an excellent resume and would be an asset to your team. But because they work in the IT department, they could easily access sensitive materials. This is a violation of ITAR regulations, even though the employee is on U.S. soil, working for a U.S. company, and isn’t working directly with classified data.

 

[Clem72]

Weird choice of sections for summary. Why explain ITAR and mention the person applied for a job, but completely ignore the important part. What the DOJ has alleged or is investigating (to make it clear, the applicant is alleging discrimination against non-citizens/permanent residents)

 

[Gilligan]

ITAR has gotten out of control and expensive to "comply" with.

 

[Tech]

Well, that immigrant has been uppity lately.

 

[vraiblonde]

(to make it clear, the applicant is alleging discrimination against non-citizens/permanent residents)

Wait, illegals can sue you for discrimination if you refuse to hire them?? Did I read that right?

And yes, I just read the blurbs and not the whole story.

 

[glhs837]

Weird choice of sections for summary. Why explain ITAR and mention the person applied for a job, but completely ignore the important part. What the DOJ has alleged or is investigating (to make it clear, the applicant is alleging discrimination against non-citizens/permanent residents)

How about this section? Seems like a witch hunt to me.

Space X had provided a spreadsheet with I-9 information under the original subpoena and refused to produce the documents that support an employee’s status. This information would include photocopies of driver’s licenses, social security cards, passports, and work visas. It is unclear exactly why the IER is investigating a pattern or practice of discrimination when Space X is required to discriminate against broad categories of non-citizens for ITAR compliance reasons.

The investigation into this complaint began under the Trump administration, and the request to enforce an administrative subpoena occurred under the Biden administration. It is unclear if this is just another example of how overregulation puts undue burdens on organizations when agencies have conflicting mandates or if CEO Elon Musk’s recent critical statements could have spurred these actions. He has criticized the FAA for delaying a Space X test flight, questioned the response to the GameStop stock drama, and asserted that the complete transition to electric vehicles by 2035 is not feasible.

 

[glhs837]

Wait, illegals can sue you for discrimination if you refuse to hire them?? Did I read that right?

And yes, I just read the blurbs and not the whole story.

So I think the person in question might be here on a work visa. Or wants to be.

 

[Tilted]

Wait, illegals can sue you for discrimination if you refuse to hire them?? Did I read that right?

And yes, I just read the blurbs and not the whole story.

No - at least not, as far as I'm aware, under federal law. Federal law prohibits, IIRC, employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion and, to some extent, disability and age. It doesn't prohibit discrimination based on, e.g., legal presence - or, e.g., political ideology or affiliation.

Some state laws prohibit employment discrimination based on other factors - e.g., political activity or sexual orientation. I doubt it, but maybe some already (facially) prohibit employment discrimination based on legal presence.

I'd also note that thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v Clayton County (2020), federal law effectively prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

[Hijinx]

Why is hiring the people you want to hire considered discrimination?
Must a company have to defend itself every time it turns down an applicant?

Maybe the hiring agent just didn't think the guy was up to snuff.
Can't that be enough reason not to hire someone.

 

[vraiblonde]

I'd also note that thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v Clayton County (2020), federal law effectively prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I thought that was settled like 20 years ago. I remember a discussion on here that went on for pages and weeks.

 

[Clem72]

Wait, illegals can sue you for discrimination if you refuse to hire them?? Did I read that right?

And yes, I just read the blurbs and not the whole story.

Here was the relevant complaint:

The charge alleges that on or about March 10, 2020, during the Charging Party’s interview for the position of Technology Strategy Associate, SpaceX made inquiries about his citizenship status and ultimately failed to hire him for the position because he is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

I assume it had to be a work visa because there's zero chance an illegal would be able to sue for not being hired. The DOJ subpeonad I assume because they asked for files related to this hiring incident and didn't receive them. I suppose they can investigate whatever they wish, but simply asking if someone is a citizen when the job has special access requirements surely cannot be made illegal. Or who knows, maybe it can. It's not like we apparently care about espionage anymore. How many times have they caught foreign nationals photocopying documents or taking pictures on base and they just turn them loose.

 

[Tilted]

I thought that was settled like 20 years ago. I remember a discussion on here that went on for pages and weeks.

You might be thinking of something related, or some state laws which prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But federal law as written doesn't prohibit such discrimination. The Bostock decision interpreted the prohibition on sex based employment discrimination as effectively prohibiting sexual orientation based employment discrimination. That decision was a bit of a surprise to me, especially as Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion.

That decision being so recent is part of why we got the executive order from President Biden which some have referred to as the trans athlete EO. That EO effectively directs the heads of the various executive branch departments to review current regulations to make sure that they are, and change them such that they are, in compliance with the reasoning of the Bostock decision. So the current administration will probably change a number of implementing regulations - ones that apply to other areas of federal law which prohibit discrimination (e.g. Title IX and the Fair Housing Act) - such that they effectively prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as part of their prohibition of discrimination based on sex. I think that's wrong and problematic; but the real problem is the reasoning of the Bostock decision.

 

[vraiblonde]

How many times have they caught foreign nationals photocopying documents or taking pictures on base and they just turn them loose.

Not to mention the 9/11 hijackers.