(CALIFORNIA, USA) LanceSoft, a major IT staffing firm that places technical workers across the United States, is under sharp scrutiny after posting a California support role that flatly excluded U.S. citizens and green‑card holders and limited applicants only to people on an H‑1B visa. The advert triggered accusations of unlawful discrimination and fresh questions about abuse of employment‑based visas.
The job advert: key facts
- Posted: November 25, 2025
- Pay: US$ 60 per hour (mid‑tier tech support rate)
- Visa requirement (as written in the advert): “must hold an active H1B visa”
- Recruiter note: “No USC/GC for this role” (no U.S. citizens or green‑card holders)
With that brief line, LanceSoft effectively shut out Americans and permanent residents from a job based in their own country.
Why the language matters legally
Employment lawyers and worker advocates say the advert’s wording is likely illegal, not merely offensive. Federal anti‑discrimination rules enforced by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division forbid employers from refusing to consider workers because they are U.S. citizens, permanent residents, refugees, or asylees — except in narrow situations set by law.
- Analysis by VisaVerge.com indicates that “H‑1B only” or “No USC/GC” job ads have become an enforcement target for federal authorities.
- Such phrasing can trigger investigations because it appears to exclude classes of workers protected under federal law.
Company response and public reaction
The backlash built quickly after the advert was flagged on social media and shared with reporters.
- Within 24 hours of being contacted by journalists, LanceSoft removed the listing from the job board.
- The company has not issued a public statement explaining how the advert was approved or whether anyone inside the firm will face consequences.
- Critics argue the swift takedown suggests LanceSoft knew the posting would not withstand legal or public scrutiny.
Government enforcement signals
Officials at the Department of Justice have indicated they are watching discriminatory hiring practices that sideline citizens and permanent residents in favor of temporary foreign workers.
- Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, confirmed a team is actively investigating such practices.
- Although the DOJ has not publicly named LanceSoft as a current investigation target, the advert’s wording matches conduct the department has punished in the past.
- Past enforcement actions have fined large employers, including Meta and IBM, for job ads and recruitment systems that favored temporary visa holders over qualified American workers.
The broader H‑1B controversy
The LanceSoft case highlights long‑running concerns about the H‑1B visa program.
- The H‑1B program is intended to allow U.S. employers to hire highly skilled foreign professionals when suitable domestic candidates cannot be found.
- Critics say some staffing and outsourcing firms use the program to create a cheaper, more controllable workforce, preferring visa holders even for roles (like basic technical support) that many local workers could perform.
- Phrases such as “No USC/GC” are seen by critics as evidence that some employers are not addressing a genuine skills gap but are deliberately closing the door on citizens.
Federal response and initiatives
Federal labor agencies have stepped up joint enforcement to curb this pattern.
- Agencies involved include the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the Department of Labor (DOL).
- Initiatives include Project Firewall, which aims to stop employers from abusing the H‑1B system and to ensure companies consider qualified American workers first.
Red flags that may trigger investigations include:
– “H‑1B only”
– “OPT/CPT preferred”
– Explicit bans on U.S. citizens or green‑card holders
Consequences can include investigations, civil penalties, and forced changes to hiring practices.
Impact on H‑1B workers
The advert also affects temporary foreign workers in complex ways.
- Some H‑1B workers may view an “H‑1B only” advert as advantageous in a competitive market.
- But such preferences can fuel public anger and accelerate calls for tighter rules or lower visa caps.
- Worker advocates note that many H‑1B professionals have limited bargaining power because their immigration status is employer‑dependent; they may be vulnerable if enforcement leads to reduced visa numbers or stricter renewals.
Impact on U.S. citizens and permanent residents
For domestic job seekers, especially in IT, the advert reinforced perceptions of unfairness.
- Many U.S. workers have experienced offshoring or replacement by contractors on work visas.
- When a California support job explicitly blocks citizens and green‑card holders from applying, it deepens concern that government promises to “put American workers first” are not being upheld in the staffing sector.
Risks to employers and recruiters
Legal experts warn firms about the consequences of excluding candidates based on citizenship or immigration status.
- Employers can specify: required skills, experience, security clearances, or location.
- Employers cannot lawfully exclude candidates simply for being U.S. citizens or green‑card holders or for lacking a temporary status such as H‑1B.
- Potential risks for employers include:
- DOJ investigations
- EEOC charges
- Reputational damage
- Loss of clients or being blacklisted by cautious corporate customers
Even small staffing firms that rely on short‑term contracts can face serious business fallout.
Policy implications and possible reforms
The incident feeds into debates in Washington over employment‑based immigration policy.
- Lawmakers skeptical of the H‑1B program now have fresh examples where employers appear to prefer temporary workers over domestic candidates.
- Proposed reforms range from:
- Stricter wage rules
- Higher fees for high‑volume users
- More surprise audits of staffing agencies that sponsor many H‑1B employees
- Tougher checks on job adverts and recruitment channels used by visa‑dependent employers
Official guidance and obligations
The government’s guidance emphasizes that H‑1B is meant to supplement, not replace, U.S. workers.
- See the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services H‑1B information page for official details.
- Employers must certify, under penalty of law, that hiring an H‑1B worker will not harm the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.
- Critics argue that an advert stating “No USC/GC” conflicts with that statutory promise.
What’s next
LanceSoft remains publicly silent while job seekers and advocates await further action.
- If the DOJ or other agencies bring a case, it may test how aggressively federal enforcers will police citizenship‑based discrimination in staffing.
- Regardless of the legal outcome, the brief life of one California job ad has already become a national example of how a few words about visas can trigger:
- Legal risk
- Political debate
- Personal frustration for workers on both sides of the immigration line
The episode underscores how careful employers must be in job postings and how strongly federal authorities and public opinion now react to explicit exclusions based on citizenship or immigration status.
LanceSoft posted a California tech‑support job that explicitly required an active H‑1B visa and barred U.S. citizens and green‑card holders. Legal experts say such exclusions likely violate federal anti‑discrimination laws enforced by the DOJ, EEOC, and DOL. LanceSoft removed the listing within 24 hours without comment. The episode has reignited scrutiny of H‑1B use by staffing firms and prompted federal enforcement attention and calls for tighter hiring oversight and policy reforms.
