Supervisor’s Negative Comments Regarding Green Card Process did not Establish Animus Based on National Origin
1 min read
Mar 26, 2012
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has reaffirmed that an employee may not use a supervisor's negative comments regarding immigration status as evidence of national origin discrimination. In the case, Guimaraes v. SuperValu, Inc., a Brazilian supermarket employee working in the U.S. on an H-1B non-immigrant worker visa alleged that her supervisor had facilitated her termination because of her nationality. The employer, who had sponsored the employee's pending petition for legal permanent residency (i.e., her "Green Card"), argued that the employee was not terminated for any discriminatory reason, but rather for poor work performance. In response, the employee offered just one piece of evidence: her supervisor's statement that she wanted to have the Brazilian employee fired "and stop [her] Green Card process."
The Eighth Circuit found that the supervisor's statement was not sufficient evidence to support her claim. Citing to U.S. Supreme Court case law, the Eighth Circuit observed that while aliens are protected from discrimination based on their nationality by Title VII, "nothing in [the law] makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of citizenship or alienage." The employee, the court noted, had "conflate[d] citizenship or immigration status with national origin." Further, the court found, the term "green card" is not so "charged with national-origin discriminatory animus" that it should viewed as a "code word for [the employee's] national origin," as the employee had argued. The Eighth Circuit therefore affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment to the employer.
The Eighth Circuit's decision is a good reminder to employers who utilize non-immigrant foreign labor that their employment decisions based upon employees' immigration status do not in and of themselves provide a basis for a discrimination claim. Regardless, employers must be very cautious when discussing or acting based upon employees' immigration status -- while in this case it was the employee who conflated citizenship with nationality, an employer could very easily conflate the two ideas in its words or decisions and thereby create the basis for a claim of national-origin discrimination. Employers should always contact counsel whenever making an employment decision based upon immigration status.
Featured Insights

Webinar
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Aug 5, 2026
2026 AI Compliance: Upcoming Laws Every Organization Needs to Know

Press Release
July 21, 2026 | Updated on August 4, 2026
Three Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the 2026 National Black Lawyers’ Top 40 Under 40 List

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

