OpenAI and Statsig Agree to $3.2 Million DOJ Settlement Over PERM Recruitment Allegations

A large remedy for a small group of jobs

The department says fewer than 10 PERM positions were at issue. The $3.2 million total consists of $1.2 million in civil penalties paid to the United States and a $2 million fund for back pay. The agency said the amount reflected the harm when U.S. workers are shut out of applying for lucrative technology jobs.

That split makes the resolution more than a fine. For future PERM recruitment, OpenAI must post jobs on its public careers site, accept electronic applications, train relevant personnel on the Immigration and Nationality Act’s anti-discrimination requirements, revise employment policies, and comply with departmental monitoring and reporting.

The boundary of the compensation remedy is narrower. The department told a contemporaneous report that it will review submissions from U.S. workers who believe they were discriminated against to determine whether they were not fairly considered for the jobs at issue. The fund is specifically for workers who applied for those positions, rather than all workers who may not have seen the advertising.

Why OpenAI’s settlement carries visibility beyond the positions at issue

The department said this is its 13th settlement since it relaunched the Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative in 2025. The initiative enforces the INA’s ban on citizenship-status discrimination when an employer unlawfully favors people with employment visas over U.S. workers; its resolutions can pair civil penalties with back pay, training and changes to recruiting practices.

OpenAI’s profile makes the case conspicuous even though the identified group of jobs was small. Contemporaneous reporting described the ChatGPT developer as the highest-profile company to settle under the relaunched initiative. That visibility does not establish a comparison in scale or legal responsibility with other employers; it does show why the mechanics of advertising and accepting applications are likely to receive scrutiny.

The next evidence is who qualifies and whether the process changes

The immediate test is administrative. The department will have to determine which applicants were not fairly considered and therefore qualify for the back-pay fund. Its monitoring and reporting requirements should also show whether the companies actually make future PERM openings publicly visible and electronically accessible.

Those results—not the settlement headline alone—would be the clearest evidence of how much of the alleged harm can be compensated and whether the forward-looking requirements change the recruitment process the government challenged.