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

In The News
Aug 24, 2026
David Schultz Reviews a Humorous—But Important—FDCPA Procedural Ruling

Press Release
Aug 20, 2026
115 Hinshaw Lawyers Recognized in 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Ones to Watch®

Press Release
Aug 20, 2026
Hinshaw’s Landmark Tower Client Project Receives 2026 Top Projects Award

Press Release
Aug 19, 2026
Fernando Rivera-Maissonet Elected as HNBA Region II Governor and Board of Governors Member

Employment Law Observer
Aug 17, 2026
Massachusetts’ First Paid Family Medical Leave Act Verdict Yields $4.75 Million Award

Press Release
Aug 13, 2026
Lauren Campisi Recognized as a 2026 BTI Client Service All-Star by BTI Consulting Group

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Aug 13, 2026
How Will Banks Be Impacted by the Proposed Regulation O Amendments?

Press Release
Aug 12, 2026
William Cook Honored With the Distinguished Service Award by the Chicago Bar Association

Webinar
Aug 12, 2026
John Ryan Presents on "Understanding what is Covered Under the TCPA Today"

In The News
Aug 12, 2026
Scott Seaman Analyzes California’s New Pleading Standards for Excess Insurance Policy Claims


