Before agreeing to sponsor the green card process, my company made me sign a document saying that I would stay with the company for atleast two years AFTER getting the green card, otherwise I have to pay some amount calculated base don remaining months. Not that I have intent to leave, but is the company legally allowed to do this?
Is this a legal document?
- Thread starter ddvs
- Start date
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
ddvs said:
Sure, why not?
TheRealCanadian
Volunteer Moderator
yeppo said:
No - a contract is binding if both parties are legally able to consent to its contents. If so, it's valid, no matter who one-sided it may be.
i imagine it would for calculations... but did they give you a figure in a hypothetical sense, say, if you were to leave the day after you got approved, what bill would they stick you with?ddvs said:
where i am going with this is that this might not be a bad deal after all. judging by what you said about having no intention of leaving, yours might be a good company in terms of being an employer. if that were the case, you'd leave early only if you got a *much* better offer, in which case you wouldn't mind paying a sum of money, or that your salary increase might even make up for your loss in a very short while. of course this depends on what figure they have in mind. if it is ~$5,000 - give or take - that's reasonable. if they have something like $15,000 in mind, then you might just enjoy your stay with the sponsor
ddvs said:
I believe this is legal. Look at it from the employer's point-of-view: they are sponsoring you to work there. They are investing manpower and $$$ to get your GC - so they want to ensure their investment works out.
You just have to decide whether or not the GC is worth the 2 years of employment there.
harvydonald
Registered Users (C)
It depends on the state you live in....find out if your state is right to work state or not.
Down here in Texas...no company can hold an employee back based on a few pages of signed document. Almost any court will throw the case out and the employee will be free to go.
Having said that I you should be a man (or woman) of your word...and honor your own signature....you knew what you were signing....
Down here in Texas...no company can hold an employee back based on a few pages of signed document. Almost any court will throw the case out and the employee will be free to go.
Having said that I you should be a man (or woman) of your word...and honor your own signature....you knew what you were signing....
Wrong, the contract is not binding if it violates law. Just a legal consent by both parties is not enough. Your emp. cannot place undue restrictions which prevent you from changing a job. For ex. you have to pay $10K to leave the job within 3 yrs would be an undue restriction on a job opportunity, but $500 paid for relocation to be reimbursed if you quit within a year is valid. Two years in my opinion is an undue restriction, just contact an attorney you may be able to quit without trouble.TheRealCanadian said:
hipka said:
If it was plain simple contract without any reason, then you could call it "undue restriction". But the issue is that this contract is tied to a lengthy GC processing where employer can expect a service for certain period after that processing is done. If the amount is unfair, that certainly can be disputed. Keep in mind that employer can claim processing expenses for only those the stages where employee was involved (like I-140 or I-485). Employer cannot demand fee for newspaper advertisements, LC filing fee or attorney fee for those stages from employee.
sandeepM said:
It's not just "giving a job", but bringing an alien to USA thru GC process and then giving a job. Now, this GC process is not cheap. When employers spends some money for that process, it's fair for employer to expect that the concerned employee will work for that company for "certain period of time". Or, if the employee does not work that period then he/she has to return "certain amount of the GC process expense". Now, if the "certain period of time" is too long (like you said, 10 years) or the "certain amount" is too much (much greater than the actual processing expense) then the employee can argue about it (and go to court). So for this kind of situation you can argue about content of the contract or the fairness of that content, but the contract itself is not invalid.
For example, one of my close friends who got her GC thru one of the big company in bay area, she had following condition in her offer letter:
The company is willing to sponsor her GC on the condition that she will serve the company for certain period. Otherwise, after GC processing starts, if she leaves she has to return certain amount to company (paid by company at that point for GC process).
If she leaves before 1 year after joining, she has to return full expense.
If she leaves between 1-1.5 year, she has to return half of the expense.
If she leave between 1.5-2 year after joining she has to return one fourth.
After 2 years she does not need to return anything.
Now, her GC processing took more than 2 years after she joined that company.
Was that condition fair. I guess so.
sandeepM said:
If there is A CONTRACT between headhunter and employer and it says headhunter has to return money if emppoyee leaves after joining, then YES definitely that contract is valid. But I am never heard of that kind of contract and if I was the headhunter I would not sign that contract. And I don't think any headhunter would sign that contract - because it breaks the basic premise of headhunting business. But if A headhunter signed it, it's valid.
sandeepM said:
Atleast in USA headhunting is done for the benefit for empoyer - not for the benefit of any specific employee (or potential employee). So GC comparison is not exactly similar. That's the very reason legally employer should not ask for any expenses in pre-I140 stage (like newpaper add, LC filing fee etc).
Nothing is done for benifit of employee, whether it is gc or head hunting.
It is only the need of employer.
if employer cannot find a suitable person in the US, they get someone from outside the US ( and hence sponsor the GC).
looking at in broad terms, its just the cost of finding a suitable employee...wether headhunting or sponsoring..
And usually the company will pay for the H1 etc...but not for the GC. at least mine did not...
It is only the need of employer.
if employer cannot find a suitable person in the US, they get someone from outside the US ( and hence sponsor the GC).
looking at in broad terms, its just the cost of finding a suitable employee...wether headhunting or sponsoring..
And usually the company will pay for the H1 etc...but not for the GC. at least mine did not...