Here, plaintiff concedes that he was not work-authorized, but alleges, in essence, that he could have become work-authorized if defendant had provided the TN letter, and that defendant's refusal to do so, and its subsequent withdrawal of its employment offer, were motivated in whole or in part by unlawful discrimination constituting a violation of the NYCHRL. The cases relied on by plaintiff in support of his contention (see e.g. Krzywinska v J & J Hotel Co. LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 30331[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2014]) are distinguishable from the case at bar, as they concern situations where employers took adverse actions against undocumented employees who had actually worked for the employer for some period of time (see also Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Immigration Status and National Origin, NYC Commission on Human Rights at 27 ["Once in the workplace, employees have protections and remedies available to them under the NYCHRL regardless of their immigration status, work authorization, or whether they are paid on or off the books" (emphasis added)]). Plaintiff here never actually worked for defendant, having not appeared on his start date due to being denied entry to the U.S. Consequently, in the absence of any authority to the contrary, we hold that the NYCHRL does not require employers to assist prospective work-authorized individuals with their applications to become work-authorized and thus, here, defendant was required neither to provide plaintiff with a TN letter nor to employ plaintiff following the failure of his attempt to obtain TN status. In view of the foregoing, the Civil Court properly granted the branch of defendant's cross-motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged employment discrimination.