DOJ Settles With OpenAI for $3.2M Over PERM Recruitment Discrimination

What Happened

On August 4, 2026, the Department of Justice's [Civil Rights Division announced](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/civil-rights-division-secures-settlement-openai-discriminating-against-us-workers) a combined $3,200,000 settlement with OpenAI OpCo LLC and its subsidiary Statsig Inc., a Bellevue, Washington-based software development company. The settlement resolves allegations that both companies violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by discriminating against U.S. workers and preferring workers with temporary employment visas during the Permanent Labor Certification (PERM) process.

"It is illegal to discriminate against U.S. workers by preferring temporary visa holders for jobs," said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. "This substantial settlement ensures that OpenAI redresses harm and changes its recruitment practices so that U.S. workers receive a fair opportunity for highly sought-after technology positions."

The DOJ's investigation found three specific violations in how OpenAI handled PERM recruitment. First, OpenAI did not advertise PERM positions on its external job website, even though its standard practice was to post all other openings there. Second, OpenAI required applicants for PERM-linked positions to mail paper applications, while the company accepted electronic applications for every other role. Third, OpenAI took additional steps to discourage U.S. workers from applying, including advertising PERM positions on the radio late at night.

While fewer than ten PERM positions were at issue, the settlement amount reflects the harm to U.S. workers when they are shut out of applying for what the DOJ described as "lucrative technology positions." OpenAI stated it disagreed with the DOJ's findings but settled to resolve the matter and move forward with its immigration-support program for employees.

The Settlement Terms

Under the agreement, OpenAI will pay $1,200,000 in civil penalties to the United States and establish a back-pay fund of $2,000,000 to compensate victims of the discriminatory practices. The settlement also imposes forward-looking compliance requirements:

• Post all PERM-linked positions on OpenAI's public career website alongside standard job openings.
• Accept electronic applications for PERM positions through the same channels used for all other roles.
• Train all personnel involved in PERM recruitment on the INA's anti-discrimination requirements.
• Revise employment policies governing the PERM recruitment process.
• Submit to DOJ monitoring and reporting requirements for three years.

A Pattern of Enforcement: The Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative

The OpenAI settlement is not an isolated action. It is the 13th settlement since the DOJ [relaunched its Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative](https://www.justice.gov/crt/protecting-us-workers-initiative) in 2025 to enforce the INA's prohibition on citizenship-status discrimination. The initiative has targeted technology and IT services companies that create separate, harder application channels for PERM-linked positions.

As [Klasko Immigration Law Partners analyzed](https://www.klaskolaw.com/doj-enforcement-continues-to-target-perm-recruitment/), a clear pattern connects these cases. The legal theory rests on two statutes working together: [8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(1)(B)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324b), which prohibits citizenship-status discrimination in hiring or recruitment, and the DOL's PERM regulation at [20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/656.10), which requires PERM recruitment to be conducted in good faith and in a manner consistent with how the employer normally recruits for comparable non-PERM roles.

The critical enforcement insight: none of these cases required proof of an explicit, on-the-record citizenship exclusion. In each case, the DOJ's theory rested on the allegation that PERM applicants faced a different, harder, or broken channel than other applicants. That divergent channel alone is treated as strong evidence of intent to discourage U.S. workers from applying — regardless of whether any applicant ever interacted with a recruiter.

How the Penalties Are Escalating

The enforcement trajectory shows rapidly increasing costs for employers who maintain separate PERM recruitment tracks. The severity scales with the degree of divergence from standard practices and the employer's willingness to engage with the DOJ once an investigation begins:

• Facebook/Meta (settled October 2021): Mail-only applications plus refusal to consider U.S. applicants who applied anyway, plus narrower recruiting channels. Result: $4.75 million civil penalty and up to $9.5 million in back pay.
• Apple (settled November 2023; back pay distributed May 2026): Did not advertise PERM positions on its external job site and required mail-only paper applications. Result: $6.75 million civil penalty and $18.25 million back-pay fund, plus semi-annual compliance reports.
• Cloudera (complaint filed April 28, 2026): A dedicated intake email address for PERM applicants that silently rejected external messages. Result: No negotiated resolution — DOJ filed an administrative complaint.
• OpenAI/Statsig (settled August 3, 2026): Mail-only requirement for PERM applications with no additional alleged barriers. Result: $1.2 million civil penalty and $2 million back-pay fund, plus three years of monitoring.

What Attorneys Should Know

This settlement reinforces that PERM recruitment compliance now sits at the intersection of two enforcement regimes — the DOL's good-faith recruitment standard under 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c) and the DOJ's anti-discrimination statute under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. An employer can fully satisfy DOL's procedural PERM requirements and still face INA liability if its recruitment process for PERM roles diverges from its standard hiring channels.

The IER's enforcement theory does not require proof of discriminatory intent or a stated policy against U.S. workers. A facially neutral operational decision — routing PERM applications to a dedicated inbox, requiring a mailed cover letter, or using a separate portal — can independently create INA liability. This represents a significant expansion of how the INA's anti-discrimination provision is being applied in practice.

For employers with active PERM programs, Klasko recommends conducting a privileged, attorney-led audit covering PERM recruitment channels, application parity, and applicant tracking practices. The firm specifically warns against: creating any separate or harder application path for PERM roles (even for internal recordkeeping convenience), letting IT or operational changes break a channel used only by PERM applicants, and waiting to be contacted before addressing potential issues.

What Applicants Should Do

If you are a U.S. worker (citizen, permanent resident, asylee, or refugee) who applied — or attempted to apply — for a position at OpenAI or Statsig through their PERM recruitment process and encountered barriers such as mail-only application requirements, you may be eligible for compensation from the $2 million back-pay fund.

• Contact the DOJ's Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) at 1-800-255-7688 or visit the [IER website](https://www.justice.gov/crt/immigrant-and-employee-rights-section) for information on filing a claim.
• If you are a visa holder whose employer sponsors you through PERM, this settlement does not affect your petition or green card process — it addresses how your employer recruits U.S. workers for PERM-linked positions.
• If your employer uses a separate application process, dedicated mailbox, or paper-only requirement for PERM positions, that practice may be under DOJ scrutiny — raising the issue with your immigration counsel may be appropriate.