|
The state of New York's highest court has ruled that
employment-ineligible immigrant workers who were injured on the job are
not precluded, under U.S. immigration law and the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds Inc. v. National Labor
Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), from recovering lost
earnings.
One case involved Gorgonio Balbuena, a
construction worker who had suffered a workplace injury that rendered
him incapacitated and unable to work, and who sued his employer for
negligence and for having violated state labor laws. Balbuena sought to
recover damages, including lost past wages and future loss of earnings.
The defendants sought documentation of Balbuena's authorization to work
in the United States. Balbuena objected to the request and did not
produce any information or documentation about his immigration status.
The defendants, citing Hoffman, filed a motion, arguing that
federal law preempted Balbuena's state tort claims and that an award of
lost wages to Balbuena would undermine national immigration policies.
(For a summary of the decision in Hoffman, see "Supreme Court Bars Undocumented Worker from
Receiving Back Pay Remedy for Unlawful Firing,"
Immigrants' Rights Update,
Apr. 12, 2002, pp. 10-12.) Balbuena responded by admitting that he did
not possess work authorization documents, but he argued that Hoffman
does not bar him from recovering damages resulting from employer
violations of state labor law, because the facts in his case are
distinguishable from those in Hoffman. The trial court denied
the defendant's motion, ruling that New York labor law allows
undocumented workers to recover lost wages and that Hoffman does
not apply to state tort actions. (For a summary of the New York trial
court's decision in Balbuena see, "N.Y. Court Rules That Undocumented Workers Are
Entitled to Damages for Lost Wages in State Tort Actions,"
IRU, July 15, 2003, p. 12.)
On appeal, the appellate court dismissed
Balbuena's claims for lost wages he might have earned in the U.S.,
citing Sanango v. 200 East 16th St. Housing Corp., 15 AD3d 36
(1st Dept. 2005), and held that Hoffman precludes an undocumented
worker from claiming lost wages based on U.S. earnings but allows a
recovery based on income that could be earned in his or her home
country. (For a summary of the decisions in Balbuena and
Sanango, see "N.Y. Court Holds That Undocumented Workers Can
Recover Lost Wages, but Only the Amount They Would Have Earned in Their
Home Country," IRU, Feb. 10, 2005, p. 9.)
Another case before the New York high court
involved Stanislaw Majlinger, a construction worker who was seriously
injured when he fell from a scaffold 15 feet above the ground.
Majlinger sued the defendant employer for violations of state labor law,
and he also sought lost earnings. Like Balbuena, in response to
discovery requests from the defendants, Majlinger admitted that he was
not authorized to be employed in the U.S. The defendant filed a motion
to dismiss Majlinger's claim for lost wages based on the fact that he
was undocumented, as well as the theory that, pursuant to Hoffman,
federal immigration law and preemption principles bar his claim. The
trial court in Majlinger's case dismissed his claim for lost wages.
(For a summary of the decision in Majlinger, see "N.Y. Court, Relying on Hoffman, Denies
Worker's Lost Earnings Award," IRU, Nov. 24, 2003,
p. 9.) The New York attorney general intervened, however, and the
appellate court reinstated Majlinger's claim for lost wages and held
that federal immigration law does not preempt state tort law because
neither the federal statutes nor Hoffman forbid an undocumented
worker from recovering lost wages in a personal injury action. (For a
summary of the appellate court's criticism of the lower court's decision
in Majlinger, see "New York Court Rejects Discovery of Workers'
Immigration Status in Workers' Compensation Claim," IRU, Dec.
22, 2004, pp. 5-6.)
Both Balbuena's and Majlinger's matters were
appealed to New York's highest court, which was to decide whether
injured undocumented workers are entitled to recover lost wages. In
making its decision, the court analyzed federal immigration laws, the
impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman, and preemption
principles.
In analyzing federal immigration laws, the
high court noted that prior to the enactment of the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), the Supreme Court ruled in Sure-Tan
Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 467 U.S. 883, 893 (1984),
that undocumented workers are entitled to the protections and remedies
under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Then, in 1986, the
enactment of IRCA created a new employment eligibility verification
system, commonly known as the "I‑9 process," to deter the employment of
unauthorized workers. IRCA makes it unlawful for employers to knowingly
violate the employment eligibility verification requirements and makes
it a crime for an undocumented worker to use false documents to obtain
employment.
The New York high court next addressed the
impact of Hoffman on the two underlying appeals. The Supreme
Court decided in Hoffman that an undocumented worker who was
unlawfully terminated for participating in union organizing activities
and who had gained his employment by presenting false documents was
prohibited under federal immigration law from receiving an award of back
pay under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The defendants in
both Balbuena and Majlinger argued that IRCA, as construed
by Hoffman, prohibits an undocumented worker from recovering lost
wages in a personal injury action, because to allow recovery would be in
direct contravention of federal immigration policies. The defendants
also argued that because the federal government has exclusive
jurisdiction over immigration matters, federal law and policy regarding
undocumented workers preempt state laws, and this preemption prohibits
the awarding of lost wages to undocumented workers.
The plaintiffs and the New York attorney
general (as intervenor) argued that undocumented workers are entitled to
recover lost wages as a result of the defendants' violations of state
workplace safety requirements, because IRCA does not preempt state law
in this area and because precluding lost wages claims would make it
"financially more attractive to hire" undocumented workers, "thereby
undercutting the central goal of the federal act," as well as provide
less of an incentive for employers to comply with state labor laws. The
plaintiffs also argued that preemption principles are not applicable to
their cases because "neither the text of IRCA nor its legislative
history indicates that [in passing it] Congress intended to affect"
state workplace protections.
The court next analyzed the case in light of
three preemption principles that might apply to it under the Supremacy
Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In analyzing whether "express
preemption" might apply, the court rejected the defendants' arguments by
finding that IRCA does not contain express statements from Congress that
the law was intended to preempt state law or remedies for state personal
injury actions that are based on state labor laws. The court also
rejected the defendants' argument relating to "field preemption."
Citing IRCA's legislative history, the court held that while IRCA does
occupy the field of immigration law, Congress never meant for
immigration laws to affect state regulation of occupational health and
safety or the damages that could be recovered under those laws.
Finally, the court addressed "conflict preemption" and decided whether
an award for lost wages to an undocumented worker injured on the job due
to workplace violations of state labor laws would conflict with or
"erode the objectives of the IRCA" In its analysis, the court noted
that, notwithstanding the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction
over immigration law, "States possess broad authority under their police
powers to regulate the employment relationship to protect workers within
the State," including the power to enact occupational health and safety
laws (citing De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356 (1976)).
The court also addressed the applicability of
New York's labor law to undocumented workers, noting that the New York
legislature's intent in enacting these laws was to protect workers on
construction jobs and that these labor laws apply to all workers in
qualifying employment, regardless of their immigration status.
As to the issue of lost wages, the court
agreed that "limiting a lost wages claim by an injured undocumented"
worker "would lessen an employer's incentive to comply with the Labor
Law and supply all of its workers with the safe workplace" that the law
requires. The court, citing Rosa v. Partners in Progress Inc.,
152 NH 6,13, 868 A 2d 994, 1000 (2005), also stated that in order to
further the purposes of both IRCA and New York's Labor Law, "tort
deterrence principles provide a compelling reason to allow an award of
such damages against a person responsible for an illegal alien's
employment when that person knew or should have know of that illegal
alien's status." (For a summary of the decision in Rosa see, "New Hampshire Supreme Court: Undocumented
Workers May Recover Lost Earnings at U.S. Wage Levels in Limited
Circumstances," IRU, Oct. 5, 2005, pp. 10-11.) The court
further held that "a different conclusion would not only diminish the
protections afforded by the Labor Law, it would also improvidently
reward employers who knowingly disregard the employment verification
system in defiance of the primary purpose of federal immigration laws."
Barring undocumented workers from recovering lost wages would not only
lessen the "unscrupulous employer's potential liability," but it also
would make it more financially attractive to hire undocumented workers,
the court held.
The court also distinguished Hoffman,
noting that unlike the worker in Hoffman, Balbuena and Majlinger
"did not commit a criminal act under IRCA" -- because neither submitted
false work documents to their employers and they were never asked by
their employers to present work authorization documents. "Notably, IRCA
does not make it a crime to work without documentation," the court
noted. It therefore did not find that Hoffman barred these
workers from recovering lost wages. The court also held that Balbuena's
and Majlinger's presence in the U.S. without lawful status, while
impermissible under federal law, did not bar their recovery of lost
wages, since the work they performed was lawful and IRCA does not make
it a crime to be an employed undocumented worker. However, the court
also stated that any conflict that may arise with federal immigration
law by allowing an undocumented worker's lost wages claim to proceed to
trial could be "alleviated" by allowing the jury to consider immigration
status as a factor in determining damages.
In conclusion, the court held that federal
immigration law, including the IRCA, does not bar a claim for lost wages
by an undocumented worker. This decision is a victory for undocumented
workers throughout the U.S. who suffer workplace injuries and whose
employers attempt to avoid liability by raising the issue of immigration
status. However, given this court's finding that immigration status
could be a relevant issue for a jury in determining damages, it is more
important than ever that advocates educate and advise immigrant worker
plaintiffs about the possible consequences of disclosing their
immigration status.
Balbuena,
et al. v. IDR Realty LLC, et al., 2006 N.Y. LEXIS 200;
2006 NY Slip Op 124 (Feb. 21, 2006).
By
Monica Guizar,
NILC employment policy attorney
|
