Instacart to Pay $5 Million Settlement Over Citizenship and National Origin Hiring Discrimination
On October 20, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced a $5 million settlement with Instacart, the San Francisco‑based delivery platform. The agreement resolves claims that the company discriminated against U.S. workers and workers of American national origin during its Permanent Labor Certification (PERM) hiring process.
Allegations and Findings
Investigators said Instacart gave preference to applicants holding temporary employment visas, violating the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The company allegedly required U.S. applicants to mail paper applications for PERM‑listed jobs, while other candidates could apply electronically. This extra step delayed or excluded many U.S. workers.
- 1Gather any emails or job postings showing the paper‑application requirement
- 2Email Instacart@eeoc.gov with your contact info
- 3Wait for the claims administrator to reach out
- 4Submit required documentation for back‑pay or damages
Source: U.S. Department of Justice
Settlement Terms
Instacart will create a fund of up to $4 million to compensate affected applicants and those deterred from applying between December 2023 and February 2026. A claims administrator will contact potential claimants; meanwhile, anyone who believes they were harmed can email Instacart@eeoc.gov.
The company also agrees to pay $1 million in civil penalties to the United States and to change its hiring practices. Instacart must post PERM jobs on its public career site, accept electronic applications, train staff on anti‑discrimination rules, revise policies, and submit to ongoing monitoring and reporting.
What This Means for Workers
If you applied for a Instacart PERM position during the covered period and were asked to mail a paper application, you may be eligible for back pay or compensatory damages. Contact the claims administrator or email the address above with your information. Keep any emails, job postings, or correspondence that show the application requirements you faced.
Even if you did not apply, the settlement signals that companies cannot legally create extra hurdles for U.S. citizens or American‑origin workers. Future job postings must allow electronic applications and cannot single out visa‑holding candidates.
When to Seek Legal Help
Consulting an employment lawyer can help you understand eligibility, gather evidence, and file a claim within any deadlines the claims administrator sets. An attorney can also advise if you have a separate claim for discrimination beyond this settlement.
What this means: our conclusions
- Good newsStronger Enforcement for U.S. Workers
The settlement shows federal agencies are actively policing hiring practices that favor temporary‑visa workers, which may deter similar conduct.
- Good newsPotential Compensation for Applicants
Eligible workers could receive back pay or damages, providing a tangible benefit for those harmed by the illegal process.
- What to watchCompliance Costs for Companies
Instacart’s required policy changes and training could increase hiring costs, prompting other firms to review their own practices.
- What to watchSignal to Gig‑Economy Platforms
The case may encourage broader scrutiny of gig‑platform hiring, especially where PERM recruitment is used.
- What to doAction Step for Affected Workers
If you applied to Instacart’s PERM jobs during the specified period, email Instacart@eeoc.gov with your details to be contacted by the claims administrator.
- here justice.gov
- website justice.gov
- website eeoc.gov
- hotline justice.gov
- presentation justice.gov
Find a lawyer for this issue
Federal rules apply nationwide, but your options depend on your state and situation. Browse attorneys by practice area, then pick your state.
This article is general information based on U.S. Department of Justice and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 20, 2026.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice
Supreme Court Signals Employees Must Use Direct Benchmarks to Challenge Retirement Fund Choices
Justices warned that employees suing over retirement fund performance must compare like‑for‑like investments, likely limiting such cases.
Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Employee Challenge Over Retirement Fund Choices
The U.S. Supreme Court signaled it will likely rule against employees who sued Intel over retirement fund investments in alternative assets like hedge funds.
Supreme Court to weigh employee claims of imprudent retirement fund investments
The Court will consider whether employees must show a benchmark to prove underperformance of Intel retirement plans under ERISA.