|
A California appellate court and Maryland's highest
state court have joined the growing chorus of courts rejecting the
expansion of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Hoffman Plastic
Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), to workers'
compensation claims. In holding that an injured worker's immigration
status is irrelevant to his workers' compensation claim, the California
and Maryland courts now join state courts in Florida, Georgia,
Minnesota, New York, and Ohio that have refused to limit workers'
compensation only to work-authorized immigrants. (For summaries of
these decisions, see "Florida Court of Appeal: Hoffman Does Not
Preempt State Workers' Compensation Law,"
Immigrants' Rights Update,
Oct. 21, 2003, p. 11; "Georgia Appellate Court Upholds Workers'
Compensation Coverage for Undocumented Worker," IRU, Nov. 8,
2004, p. 12; "Michigan Supreme Court Vacates Order Granting
Motion to Appeal in Workers' Compensation Case," IRU, Aug. 9,
2004, p. 11; "Minnesota Supreme Court Refuses to Limit
Workers' Comp Recovery in Cases Involving Undocumented Workers,"
IRU, July 15, 2003, p. 12; "New York Court Rejects Discovery of Workers'
Immigration Status in Workers' Compensation Claim," IRU, Dec.
22, 2004, p. 5; and "Ohio Appeals Court Upholds Undocumented Workers'
Right to Workers' Compensation," IRU, Sept. 21, 2004, p. 8.)
In the California case, Farmers Brothers
Coffee v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, the employer, Farmers
Brothers, relied on Hoffman to assert that the injured worker's
immigration status barred his claim for workers' compensation.
The California Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District also
rejected Farmers Brothers' argument that the Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) preempts California's labor code sections
that include undocumented workers in the definition of covered employees
and specify that immigration status is irrelevant to the issue of
liability under state labor and employment laws, including those
governing workers' compensation.
In analyzing the employer's preemption
argument, the court noted that states' historic police powers include
the regulation of workers' compensation laws and that Supremacy Clause
jurisprudence begins with the assumption that states' police powers are
not to be upset by federal law unless Congress clearly expresses that
its intent is to do so. The court held that "there is no preemption
language in the IRCA expressly affecting state workers' compensation
laws." Therefore, in light of its finding that the IRCA lacks such an
express bar on the provision of workers' compensation to undocumented
workers, the court went on to consider whether it could find that the
state's law actually conflicted with the IRCA or that Congress intended
the IRCA to occupy so completely the field of workers' compensation that
it left no room for California's law allowing injured undocumented
immigrants to recover workers' compensation.
The court noted that the California Labor Code
provision at issue in this case (sec. 1171.5) was enacted by the
California Legislature in response to Hoffman (see Rivera v.
NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1073 (9th Cir. 2004)). The legislature
sought to avoid any conflict with the IRCA by declaring that Hoffman
had not changed the protection or remedies available under state
statute to undocumented workers, including their right to workers'
compensation after suffering a workplace injury. The legislation,
SB 1818, which was enacted in 2002 and became effective on Jan. 1, 2003,
provides that an employee's immigration status is irrelevant to his or
her workers' compensation claim, except with regard to the issue of any
order of reinstatement prohibited by federal law.
The court held that there is no actual
conflict between the IRCA and California law because the state law does
not impede the IRCA's objectives. On the contrary, the court found that
the only way the state law would frustrate the IRCA's goals were if it
barred injured undocumented workers from collecting workers'
compensation because, in that case, "unscrupulous employers would be
encouraged to hire aliens unauthorized to work in the United States."
The court also concluded that if recovery of workers' compensation
benefits were to depend upon an immigrant's work authorization, the
state Workers' Compensation Appeals Board would be put into the position
of "determining employers' compliance with the IRCA . . . as well as the
immigration status of each injured employee, and whether any alien
employees used false documents." In this situation, the court found
that workers' compensation would be denied solely because of a worker's
immigration status, which would be tantamount to imparting to workers'
compensation an enforcement purpose — "in direct conflict with
the IRCA." Last, the court also held that the IRCA does not completely
occupy the field of workers' compensation, as it does "not provide for
or prohibit compensation for injured workers."
In Design Kitchen and Baths, et al. v.
Lagos, Maryland's highest court held that a worker's undocumented
status does not affect his eligibility for workers' compensation. (NILC
joined with the Public Justice Center and the National Employment Law
Center to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of the worker
in this appeal.)
In this case, a worker injured his left hand
while operating a saw under the employ of Design Kitchen and Baths. The
worker underwent two surgeries and other medical treatment to repair his
hand and sought workers' compensation for his injury. The employer
conceded that the facts surrounding the injury satisfied all the
necessary requirements of a compensable injury under Maryland law, but
challenged the award based solely on the worker's potential undocumented
status.
The employer argued that the worker was
undocumented and thus barred from lawful employment, which in turn
precluded him from being a covered employee under the state workers'
compensation statute. Further, the employer argued that "any alleged
contract of employment" between the worker and Design Kitchen and Baths
was void because of the worker's alleged undocumented status and that
honoring the employment contract would conflict directly with the IRCA.
In support of this argument, Design Kitchen and Baths relied on the
Hoffman decision. The Maryland court disagreed, finding this case
"in no way analogous to Hoffman Plastic," because, among other
reasons, the worker "in [this] case actually performed his duties and
was in the process of performing them when he was injured, while the
[worker in Hoffman] sought, and was awarded, back pay for being
wrongfully discharged."
In reaching its decision, the court held that
"clear and unambiguous language" in the state's workers' compensation
statute encompasses undocumented workers. The statute defines a
"covered worker" as "an individual, including a minor," who is "in the
service of an employer under an express or implied contract of
apprenticeship." The statute goes on to note that minors are considered
covered employees even if they are unlawfully employed. Design Kitchen
and Baths had argued that because the statute leaves unaddressed whether
immigrants who are unlawfully employed are covered employees, the court
was precluded from finding undocumented immigrants eligible for workers'
compensation. In rejecting this argument, the court quoted from the
brief of amici: "The statute is ‘silent' on this question to precisely
the same extent that it is ‘silent' on the question of whether, for
example, women, or individuals who are left-handed, can qualify as
‘covered employees' — that is to say, not at all. Undocumented
immigrants, women, and left-handed people are all ‘covered employees' if
they are ‘in the service of an employer under an express or implied
contract of apprenticeship or hire.'"
The court then buttressed its interpretation
of the statute's plain language by analyzing the legislative history of
the state workers' compensation scheme and "agree[d] with Amici" that
the legislative history established a clear legislative intent to cover
unlawful workers. In addition, the court found that "public policy also
favors the inclusion of undocumented workers as ‘covered employees'
under the statute" because without this protection, "unscrupulous
employers could . . . take advantage of this class of persons and engage
in unsafe practices with no fear of retribution."
Judge Harrell dissented from the court's
opinion based on his interpretation of the statute's plain language. He
concluded that the Maryland workers' compensation statute does not
evidence a clear intent to cover adults who are unlawfully employed, as
the statute only expressly covers unlawfully employed children. Judge
Harrell's argument rests on the notion that the legislature's express
provision covering minors who are unlawfully employed implies that no
other unlawfully employed workers are to be covered under the statute, a
notion the majority rejected by showing the impossibility of the
legislature's delineating every group it intended the statute to cover.
It is worth noting that though the worker in
this case "was instructed by his counsel not to respond to any questions
regarding his resident status and social security number," his own
attorney conceded during proceedings that the worker did not have a
Social Security card at the time he injured his hand. While both these
cases ultimately resulted in decisions affirming the workers' right to
workers' compensation, they serve as strong reminders that immigrant
plaintiffs and their attorneys must be careful not to admit that
they are not authorized to work in the U.S., that they lack certain
documents, or that they have used false documents. Likewise, it is
equally critical for legal advocates and organizers not to divulge such
information.
For copies of the briefs in these cases,
contact NILC's Karen Tumlin.
Farmers
Brothers Coffee v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board,
133 Cal. App. 4th 533 (2005);
Design Kitchen and Baths, et al. v. Lagos, 882 A.2d 817 (Md.
2005).
By
Karen Tumlin, NILC Skadden
Fellow | tumlin@nilc.org
|
