如果是有EAD也可以认为是不需要sponsorship。
除了那些有clearance需求的工作，一般来说是不可以直接问是不是公民和绿卡身份。最直接的例子就是zoom被一个DACA求职者给告了。
最有意思的就是下面的描述，zoom犯得错误就是教科书一般的。
Mr. Ramirez Ruiz alleges that he participated in a video call with another recruiter on or about July 26, and that the recruiter indicated he was an ideal candidate. However, he alleges that as the call was ending, the recruiter again asked about his need for sponsorship. Mr. Ramirez Ruiz again confirmed that he did not require sponsorship*.* According to the lawsuit, instead of dropping the matter, the recruiter asked Mr. Ramirez Ruiz whether he was a citizen of the United States. When he answered no, the recruiter allegedly asked whether he was a permanent resident.
The lawsuit contends that the recruiter continued to pressure Mr. Ramirez Ruiz to disclose the program that granted him work authorization. According to the lawsuit, “Plaintiff tried to dodge the question multiple times, not wanting to share his specific immigration status and knowing that at this point in the hiring process he was not required to share anything other than that he was legally authorized to work in the U.S.” However, he finally disclosed that he was a DACA recipient.
The recruiter allegedly responded, “ooh, that might be an issue.” He allegedly told Mr. Ramirez Ruiz that he would check out the issue internally before sending Mr. Ramirez Ruiz’s resume to a hiring manager.
Two days later, he alleges, he received an email from the recruiter saying, “[It] does not look like we can move forward due to immigration.”
Mr. Ramirez Ruiz sought a further explanation from the recruiter because his DACA status had never been an issue in other employment, but he did not receive a response.
4 个赞
提供一个另外一个逻辑: 我就打算在你们公司干3年，这么讲我可以选 ‘No’.
所以庇护的C8 EAD也可以？
反了吧？