bribery
Is it illegal to pay someone to hire me? How about receiving money in exchange for hiring someone?
<p>Is it illegal to pay someone to hire me? How about receiving money in exchange for hiring someone? Does this fall under criminal charges, and would it be considered bribery?</p>

<p>In this hypothetical situation, this occurs in a private company. For example, suppose I pay someone to hire my son in their engineering firm. Are there any U.S. laws that would prevent me from doing so? To the best of my knowledge, only New York explicitly prohibits this type of action, which would be considered commercial bribery, but I'm not entirely sure.</p>

<h2>These are both <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery" rel="nofollow noreferrer">bribery</a></h2>

<blockquote>
  <p>Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official, or other person, in charge of a public or <strong>legal duty</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The crime exists in the common law even if it is not codified by statute in a particular jurisdiction.</p>

<p>If the person you pay to hire your son is under a legal duty to the employer (e.g. is an employee or agent) then what you are both engaging in is bribery. However, if the person you pay <em>is</em> the employer (i.e. if the "engineering firm" is a company then the payment is made to that company) then the payment is not bribery.</p>

<p>However, if the payment is made by or behalf of an employee (as it almost certainly is) then it is likely (almost certain) that the payment breaches employment law because, broadly speaking, employers are not entitled to payment from employees - the money has to flow the other way.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Are there any U.S. laws that would prevent me from doing so?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes. The prohibition is on the employer's end.</p>

<p>There are various jurisdictions with a statute similar to <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(pu045xkwvqq2igmtqni1sbti))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&amp;objectName=mcl-408-478" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MCL 408.478</a> prohibiting the employer, its agent, etc. to demand or receive a fee, or other remuneration or consideration as a condition of employment. The NY equivalent is <a href="https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2019/lab/article-6/198-b/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section § 198-B of NY Labor Law</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[I]t shall be unlawful for [the employer] to request, <strong>demand, or receive</strong>, either before or after such employee is engaged, a return [...] or other <strong>thing of value</strong>, upon the statement, representation, or understanding that failure to comply with such request or demand will prevent such employee from <strong>procuring or retaining employment</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(emphasis added)</p>

<p>I can imagine several instances where it would be reasonable and legally defendable, I.e. not illegal in that the judge must acquit.</p>

<p>For instance, my company makes the fiber spitter that can make N95 mask filter material, and you frantically ordered 100 of them for next week.  We can build them, but we need your operational supervisors to take a 4-month course on operating the machines, because it isn't simple and you can destroy the machines if you do not know what you are doing.  So in lieu of that, I require you to take 2 of my engineers. </p>

<p>For many years, it was SOP for IBM to <em>allow and encourage</em> their large customers to hire their engineers away.  This was one strategy IBM used both to keep their "no layoffs" record perfect, and of course the people they nudged out the door were marginal performers or frustrated with the IBM culture. So this created a very happy ending, cementing brand loyalty with both the engineer and the customer. </p>

<p>As a nonprofit grant issuer, I get to have a say in who exactly you hire for that executive director position I am funding.  </p>

<p>So this kind of "backroom deal" is not unusual at all. </p>

<p>However, in general, the employer has an EEOC problem. (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).  If a qualified applicant feels that they were passed up on account of their gender, race, religion and certain other protected classes, then the employer needs to show that was not the case.  Nepotism complicates that, although nepotism alone is not a violation of EEO law.  Just like you can't refuse housing to a qualified black person, but you can refuse housing to a qualified black person if you moved your cousin in instead. Here enters the "Where's the victim?" question: now you have an aggrieved party coming at you, and you must at least grind through the case. </p>
