Instacart to Pay $5 Million in US Hiring Settlement

Instacart has agreed to pay $5 million to resolve allegations that it discriminated against American workers by making it more difficult for them to apply for positions advertised through the employment-based green-card sponsorship process. The settlement was announced on October 20, 2026, by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The agreement involves Maplebear Inc., the company that operates the online grocery delivery platform Instacart. Federal investigators alleged that the company’s recruitment practices created additional barriers for US workers applying for certain positions under the Permanent Labor Certification (PERM) programme, which allows employers to sponsor eligible foreign workers for employment-based permanent residency.

Under the settlement, up to $4 million will be available to compensate applicants and individuals who were allegedly discouraged from applying because of the recruitment practices. Instacart will also pay $1 million in civil penalties to the US government.

The agreement includes changes to Instacart’s recruitment procedures, employment policies, staff training and reporting obligations. The company will be required to advertise relevant positions on its public careers website and accept electronic applications during PERM recruitment.

The case highlights the legal obligations employers must follow when recruiting for positions connected to employment-based immigration sponsorship. Although companies can sponsor eligible foreign workers for permanent residency, federal law restricts certain forms of discrimination against US workers during the recruitment process.

Why Did Instacart Agree to a $5 Million Settlement?

The settlement follows investigations by the DOJ and EEOC into Instacart’s hiring practices for positions advertised as part of the PERM labour certification process.

According to the DOJ, investigators alleged that Instacart required applicants for certain PERM-related positions to submit their applications by physical mail. This differed from the company’s standard recruitment procedures, under which candidates could apply electronically.

Federal authorities alleged that the additional mailing requirement created unnecessary obstacles for American workers seeking those positions. The DOJ also said that the process meant many applicants were not considered in a timely manner.

The EEOC’s investigation reportedly identified similar evidence concerning the recruitment practices under scrutiny.

The central issue was not simply whether Instacart could recruit foreign workers or participate in the green-card sponsorship process. Instead, investigators examined whether the company had used recruitment procedures that unfairly disadvantaged US workers seeking positions connected to that process.

Under the settlement, Instacart will pay $5 million in total, divided between a compensation fund for affected individuals and a civil penalty payable to the government.

Important distinction: The agreement resolves the allegations described by the federal agencies. The settlement should not be interpreted as a finding that every aspect of Instacart’s recruitment practices was unlawful or that the company generally favoured all temporary visa holders in every hiring decision.

How the Alleged Hiring Practices Worked

The DOJ’s allegations focused on the difference between the application process used for certain PERM recruitment positions and Instacart’s usual recruitment procedures.

According to the department, applicants for certain positions advertised under PERM recruitment were required to submit applications through physical mail. Other candidates applying through the company’s standard recruitment process could apply electronically.

Requiring a physical application can create additional steps for jobseekers. Applicants may need to print documents, arrange postage and ensure that their materials reach the employer within the specified period. An electronic application process, by contrast, can generally be completed through an online recruitment portal.

The DOJ alleged that Instacart’s mailing requirement created barriers for American workers. Authorities also said that many applicants were not considered promptly, raising concerns about whether the recruitment process provided a fair opportunity to US workers.

These allegations are particularly relevant in the context of employment-based immigration because PERM recruitment is intended to establish whether qualified and available US workers can fill the position for which an employer seeks labour certification.

The federal agencies’ concern was that additional application requirements could affect who was able to apply and whether applications were considered in a timely manner.

The settlement requires Instacart to change the practices identified in the agreement. Relevant positions must be advertised on the company’s public careers website, and electronic applications must be accepted during PERM recruitment.

What Did the US Department of Justice Say?

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said the settlement marked the 15th agreement reached by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division under her leadership to protect American workers.

The department’s action reflects its enforcement focus on recruitment practices that allegedly restrict employment opportunities for US workers in connection with temporary visa and employment-based immigration programmes.

The DOJ has authority to investigate certain citizenship-status discrimination claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In cases involving recruitment for employment-based immigration sponsorship, the department can examine whether an employer’s practices unlawfully disadvantage eligible US workers.

The settlement with Instacart also forms part of the broader Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative, which the DOJ relaunched in 2025 to investigate employers accused of illegally favouring temporary visa holders.

The agreement requires the company to make changes to its recruitment procedures and comply with monitoring and reporting requirements. These measures are intended to address the practices identified during the investigation and help ensure that relevant recruitment follows the settlement’s terms.

EEOC Says Employers Must Not Unlawfully Restrict Opportunities for US Workers

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also investigated the matter. EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said the agency would take action against employers that unlawfully restrict employment opportunities for US workers by preferring temporary visa holders.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin and other protected characteristics.

The agency’s involvement underscores the importance of examining recruitment policies not only for compliance with immigration-related requirements but also for potential violations of federal employment discrimination law.

In the Instacart case, the agencies alleged that the recruitment practices violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and Title VII. The settlement provides a mechanism for compensation, imposes a civil penalty and requires changes to the company’s recruitment procedures.

For employers, the case illustrates the importance of reviewing application procedures to ensure that additional requirements imposed during immigration-related recruitment do not unlawfully disadvantage US workers.

How the $5 Million Instacart Settlement Will Be Distributed

The settlement divides the $5 million payment into two principal components: compensation for potentially affected individuals and a civil penalty payable to the US government.

The compensation fund is intended to address the potential financial and other harm experienced by people affected by the alleged recruitment practices. However, the full $4 million is described as an amount available for compensation, not a guaranteed payment to every applicant.

A claims administrator will contact potentially affected applicants and assess their eligibility for back pay and compensatory damages. The administrator will determine the appropriate compensation under the settlement’s terms.

Applicants should not assume that simply having applied for a position at Instacart automatically qualifies them for payment. Eligibility will depend on whether their circumstances fall within the scope of the settlement and the criteria applied by the claims administrator.

Who May Qualify for Compensation?

The settlement covers potentially affected applicants and individuals who were allegedly discouraged from applying for relevant positions because of the recruitment practices under investigation.

This means the process may extend beyond people who completed an application. Individuals who believe that the physical-mail requirement or related recruitment procedures prevented them from applying may also have reason to seek information about their potential eligibility.

However, the supplied settlement announcement does not provide a complete list of qualifying positions, recruitment dates or individual eligibility criteria. Those details should be confirmed through the federal agencies or the claims administrator.

Potential claimants should gather any relevant information they have about the position, application process and recruitment period. Records such as job advertisements, application confirmations, correspondence with the employer and details about difficulties encountered during the application process may help clarify their circumstances.

Keeping relevant records does not guarantee eligibility or compensation. The claims administrator will determine whether an individual qualifies under the settlement.

How to Contact the Agencies About the Instacart Settlement

Applicants who believe they were affected can contact the authorities through the email address provided in the settlement announcement.

Email: Instacart@eeoc.gov

According to the announcement, individuals can email this address so the agencies can share their information with the claims administrator.

People contacting the agencies should clearly explain that their inquiry concerns the Instacart recruitment settlement. They should provide accurate contact information and relevant details about the position or application process, while avoiding the unnecessary disclosure of sensitive personal information in an initial email.

Potential claimants should also watch for official communications concerning the claims process. The claims administrator will assess eligibility, and applicants may need to provide further information before a compensation decision can be made.

Because the settlement’s full eligibility rules and claim procedures are not detailed in the supplied announcement, individuals should seek confirmation from the relevant authorities rather than rely on assumptions about their eligibility or the amount they might receive.

What Changes Must Instacart Make Under the Agreement?

In addition to paying compensation and a civil penalty, Instacart must implement changes to its recruitment procedures and employment practices.

The measures described in the agreement include the following:

• Public job advertisements: Instacart must advertise relevant positions on its public careers website.
• Electronic applications: The company must accept electronic applications during PERM recruitment.
• Revised employment policies: Instacart must update its policies to address the obligations covered by the agreement.
• Anti-discrimination training: Relevant personnel must receive training on applicable anti-discrimination requirements.
• Monitoring and reporting: The company must comply with monitoring and reporting obligations under the settlement.

These requirements are intended to address the recruitment practices challenged by federal investigators. Public job advertisements and electronic applications can make vacancies more accessible, while policy revisions and staff training can help employees understand the legal requirements governing recruitment.

Monitoring and reporting provisions also give the authorities a means of checking compliance with the agreement. The precise implementation schedule and reporting details should be taken from the settlement terms and official agency communications.

What Is the PERM Programme?

The Permanent Labor Certification programme, commonly known as PERM, is a key step in many employment-based green-card cases in the United States.

Under the programme, an employer seeking to sponsor an eligible foreign worker for permanent residency generally must conduct a recruitment process to determine whether qualified and available US workers are available for the position. The employer must follow the applicable Department of Labor requirements before proceeding with the relevant immigration sponsorship process.

The purpose of this recruitment requirement is to protect the interests of US workers while allowing employers to seek permanent-residency sponsorship for eligible foreign employees when the applicable conditions are satisfied.

PERM is not itself a green card. It is a labour certification process that forms part of many employment-based permanent-residency applications. Following labour certification, an employer and worker may need to complete additional steps under the relevant immigration category.

How PERM Relates to EB-2 and EB-3 Green Cards

PERM labour certification is an important step for many employment-based green-card applications, particularly those in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories when labour certification is required.

The EB-2 category generally covers certain professionals with advanced degrees or individuals with exceptional ability, subject to the applicable rules. The EB-3 category generally includes eligible skilled workers, professionals and certain other workers who meet its requirements.

For many employer-sponsored applications in these categories, the labour certification process requires recruitment designed to establish whether qualified US workers are available for the position. If the employer obtains the required certification, the process may proceed to subsequent immigration filings, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

Not every employment-based green-card case follows the same path. Some applicants may qualify for exceptions or alternative procedures, depending on their circumstances and the relevant immigration category. Candidates and employers should therefore seek qualified immigration guidance when determining which requirements apply to a particular case.

The Instacart settlement focuses on the recruitment practices used for certain PERM-related positions, rather than changing the general eligibility rules for EB-2 or EB-3 immigration categories.

Why Employers Must Follow Fair Recruitment Practices During Green-Card Sponsorship

Employers participating in employment-based immigration programmes must comply with the recruitment requirements that apply to the relevant positions. The process is not simply a formality completed before a foreign worker receives sponsorship.

Recruitment is intended to assess whether qualified and available US workers can fill the position. If an employer introduces application requirements that unlawfully discourage or disadvantage US workers, those practices may raise concerns under immigration and employment discrimination laws.

The Instacart allegations demonstrate why application procedures can come under scrutiny. A difference in how candidates are allowed to submit applications may appear administrative, but investigators may examine whether the requirement creates unnecessary obstacles and affects the opportunity for US workers to be considered.

Employers should ensure that job advertisements accurately describe the position, application instructions are clear and recruitment practices comply with the rules applicable to the programme. They should also review policies regularly and provide training to personnel involved in hiring and immigration sponsorship.

The settlement reinforces the importance of documenting recruitment decisions and maintaining procedures that meet legal obligations. Companies should not assume that a hiring practice is compliant simply because it has been used internally or applied to a particular group of vacancies.

What the Case Means for US Workers and Foreign Visa Holders

The Instacart settlement is relevant to both US workers and foreign nationals seeking employment-based immigration sponsorship because it addresses how employers conduct recruitment for positions connected to permanent residency.

For US workers, the case highlights the protections available when recruitment practices allegedly create unlawful barriers to employment opportunities. Federal law can provide avenues for investigating and addressing certain forms of discrimination, depending on the circumstances.

For foreign workers, the settlement does not establish that temporary visa holders are generally prohibited from receiving employment sponsorship. Employers can continue to pursue lawful immigration sponsorship where the relevant conditions are met. The issue in this case concerned alleged practices that disadvantaged American workers during recruitment.

For companies, the agreement illustrates the potential financial and compliance consequences of recruitment practices that federal agencies consider unlawful. The $5 million settlement includes both a compensation fund and a government penalty, alongside requirements to revise policies, train staff and accept electronic applications.

The case also demonstrates that immigration-related hiring practices can attract scrutiny from more than one federal agency. The DOJ and EEOC investigated the allegations under laws covering different aspects of employment and citizenship-status discrimination.

Instacart Case and the DOJ’s Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative

The DOJ said the settlement forms part of its Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative, relaunched in 2025 to investigate employers accused of illegally favouring temporary visa holders.

The initiative reflects federal enforcement efforts focused on ensuring that employers comply with laws protecting US workers during hiring and immigration-related recruitment.

The number of agreements cited by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon also places the Instacart settlement within a wider enforcement programme. However, the existence of other settlements does not establish that all cases involve the same allegations, legal issues or recruitment practices.

Each investigation depends on its own facts, the applicable law and the evidence examined by the authorities. In the Instacart matter, the central allegations concerned physical-mail application requirements for certain PERM recruitment positions and the barriers those requirements allegedly created for American workers.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Why is Instacart paying $5 million to the US government and affected workers?

Instacart agreed to a $5 million settlement following DOJ and EEOC allegations that its recruitment practices for certain PERM-related positions created additional barriers for American workers. The settlement includes up to $4 million for compensation and $1 million in civil penalties.

2. What is Maplebear Inc.?

Maplebear Inc. is the company that operates Instacart, the online grocery delivery platform named in the settlement announcement.

3. What did investigators allege about Instacart’s application process?

The DOJ alleged that applicants for certain positions advertised under PERM recruitment were required to submit applications by physical mail, while the company’s standard recruitment process allowed electronic applications. Authorities said the additional requirement created obstacles for US workers and meant many applicants were not considered in a timely manner.

4. How much compensation can affected applicants receive?

The settlement provides for a compensation fund of up to $4 million. A claims administrator will determine eligibility for back pay and compensatory damages. Individual payments and eligibility will depend on the settlement’s terms and the claims assessment.

5. How can applicants contact the authorities?

Individuals who believe they were affected can email Instacart@eeoc.gov. The agencies can share their information with the claims administrator.

6. What changes must Instacart make to its recruitment process?

Instacart must advertise relevant positions on its public careers website, accept electronic applications during PERM recruitment, revise employment policies, train relevant personnel on anti-discrimination obligations and comply with monitoring and reporting requirements.

7. What is PERM in the US green-card process?

PERM stands for Permanent Labor Certification. It is a labour certification process used in many employment-based green-card cases to determine whether qualified and available US workers can fill a position before an employer proceeds with the relevant sponsorship process.

8. Does the settlement mean companies cannot sponsor foreign workers?

No. Employers can sponsor eligible foreign workers when they meet the applicable legal requirements. The Instacart settlement concerns allegations that particular recruitment practices unlawfully disadvantaged US workers.

9. Which laws did the agencies say were violated?

The agencies alleged violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The settlement resolves the allegations described by the federal agencies.

10. Does everyone who applied to Instacart qualify for compensation?

No. The settlement does not automatically entitle every Instacart applicant to compensation. The claims administrator will assess whether individuals meet the applicable eligibility requirements.

Conclusion

The $5 million settlement between Instacart and US federal authorities highlights the legal scrutiny that can arise when employers recruit for positions linked to employment-based green-card sponsorship.

The DOJ and EEOC alleged that requiring physical-mail applications for certain PERM recruitment positions created additional barriers for American workers. Under the agreement, up to $4 million will be available for eligible claimants, while $1 million will be paid as a civil penalty to the government.

Instacart must also change its recruitment procedures, accept electronic applications for relevant positions, revise employment policies, train personnel and comply with monitoring and reporting requirements.

For affected applicants, the next step is to contact the agencies through the designated email address and follow the claims process. For employers, the case is a reminder that recruitment practices used during immigration sponsorship must comply with applicable labour, immigration and anti-discrimination laws.