DOJ extracts $3.2 million from OpenAI over hiring discrimination allegations
The US Department of Justice has secured a $3.2 million settlement from OpenAI and one of its subsidiaries over allegations that the company discriminated against American workers by favouring applicants on temporary employment visas. Investigators found that OpenAI failed to properly advertise certain roles on its public jobs website during the Permanent Labor Certification process, a step designed to ensure foreign hires don't displace qualified US workers, and instead used obscure methods such as requiring paper applications by post and advertising vacancies on late-night radio.
Under the settlement, OpenAI must pay $1.2 million in civil penalties and contribute $2 million to a back-pay fund for affected workers, though the DOJ has not clarified how eligible victims will be identified. The company has also agreed to post roles publicly, accept electronic applications and train staff on anti-discrimination rules under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The case follows similar DOJ settlements with Meta in 2021 and Apple in 2023, and comes amid a broader tightening of US immigration policy under President Trump, including a $100,000 fee imposed on some H-1B visa applications in September 2025.
- OpenAI to pay $3.2 million over alleged US hiring discrimination
- Company reportedly hid job ads, favoured temporary visa holders
- Settlement follows similar past cases against Meta and Apple
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the settlement argue it shows that anti-discrimination protections apply even to the most prominent and well-resourced technology companies, and that no employer, however innovative, should be permitted to disadvantage applicants or employees on unlawful grounds such as citizenship status. They see robust enforcement as essential to maintaining a fair and open labour market, particularly in a fast-growing sector where new entrants may otherwise assume the rules do not apply to them, and view the financial penalty as an appropriate deterrent that protects workers who might lack the resources to challenge such practices individually.
The case against
Sceptics of the DOJ's action, or of how it is being portrayed, might argue that settlements of this kind are frequently entered into by companies to avoid the cost and reputational disruption of prolonged litigation, without any admission of intentional wrongdoing, and so should not be read as proof of deliberate discrimination. They may also contend that hiring rules in fast-moving, specialised fields like artificial intelligence are genuinely complex, particularly around immigration-related sponsorship requirements, and that good-faith compliance errors risk being conflated with malicious bias, imposing significant costs on employers navigating ambiguous regulatory terrain.