US Tech Workers et al. v. The Northern Trust Company, d/b/a Northern Trust

19 OCAHO no. 1578 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER May 30, 2024 US TECH WORKERS ET. AL., Complainant, v. THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, D/B/A NORTHERN TRUST, Respondent. 8 U.S.C. § 1324b Proceeding OCAHO Case No. 2024B00071 Appearances: John M. Miano, Esq. for Complainant Ryan H. Vann, Esq., and Carly E. Gibbons, Esq., for Respondent ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE This case arises under the antidiscrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. Complainant, US Tech Workers, et al., filed a Complaint with the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) on March 19, 2024, against Respondent, Northern Trust.1 Complainant alleges that Respondent engaged in discrimination based on citizenship status in hiring, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(1).

On April 8, 2024, the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (CAHO) sent a Notice of Case Assignment for Complaint Alleging Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices (NOCA) and a copy of the Complaint to the address for Respondent listed on the Complaint by United States Postal Service (USPS) certified mail. The USPS website’s tracking service indicates that the copy of the NOCA and Complaint mailed to Respondent were “delivered, individual picked up at postal facility” on April 20, 2024. Therefore, Respondent’s answer to the Complaint was due no later than May 20, 2024. See 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(a).2 On May 24, 2024, Respondent filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses.

Given that the regulatory deadline was May 20, 2024, Respondent’s Answer was untimely. 1 The Complaint names Northern Trust, but Respondent indicates in its filings that Northern Trust is the d/b/a of The Northern Trust Company. The Court has amended the case caption accordingly. 2 OCAHO Rules of Practice and Procedure, 28 C.F.R. pt. 68 (2022).

19 OCAHO no. 1578 Under the OCAHO Rules of Practice and Procedure, to contest a material fact alleged in the complaint, a respondent must file an answer. 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(c). Failure to file an answer “within the time provided may be deemed to constitute a waiver of his or her right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint. The Administrative Law Judge may enter a judgment by default.” Id. § 68.9(b); see also Nickman v. Mesa Air Grp., 9 OCAHO no. 1106, 1 (2004) (holding that if default judgment is entered, judgment may be entered for the complainant without a hearing).3 “A party that fails to answer a complaint within the time specified is already in default, whether or not that fact is officially noted.” United States v. Quickstuff, LLC, 11 OCAHO no. 1265, 4 (2015) (citations omitted).

“This means that the default must be excused before the party is permitted to answer.” Id. The party must make a showing of good cause before the answer may be accepted. Id. (citing United States v. Medina, 3 OCAHO no. 485, 882, 889 (1993 . Respondent does not address why its filing is untimely. The Court therefore ORDERS Respondent to file a submission that demonstrates good cause for its failure to timely file an answer within twenty-one days of the day of this Order.

Should Respondent fail to respond as ordered or cannot show good cause, the Court may enter a default judgment against Respondent pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(b).

SO ORDERED.

Dated and entered on May 30, 2024. __________________________________ Honorable Jean C. King Chief Administrative Law Judge 3 Citations to OCAHO precedents in bound volumes one through eight include the volume and case number of the particular decision followed by the specific page in the bound volume where the decision begins; the pinpoint citations which follow are to the pages, seriatim, of the specific entire volume. Pinpoint citations to OCAHO precedents after volume eight, where the decision has not yet been reprinted in a bound volume, are to pages within the original issuances; the beginning page number of an unbound case will always be 1 and is accordingly omitted from the citation. Published decisions may be accessed through the Westlaw database “FIM OCAHO,” the LexisNexis database “OCAHO,” and on the United States Department of Justice’s website: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-chief-administrative-hearing-officer-decisions. 2