|
By
Marissa Montes, NILC Summer
Intern, and
Karen Tumlin, NILC Skadden Fellow
The District Court of Southern Carolina has held that the Supreme
Court's decision in Hoffman Plastics Compounds, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Board does not bar undocumented workers from
pursuing claims for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
or state labor laws. (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.) In addition, the court also ruled
that Hoffman does not preclude plaintiffs from bringing a claim
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
based on the defendants' alleged pattern of violating immigration laws
in order to obtain cheap labor.
During discovery, the defendants attempted to
gather information regarding the plaintiffs' immigration status. The
court eventually ordered the plaintiffs to answer these discovery
requests. See 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30401 (D.S.C. 2006).
Following this order, each of the plaintiffs admitted that they were
employment-unauthorized and that they had submitted false employment
documents to the Social Security Administration. Based on these
admissions, the defendants argued that Hoffman bars the
plaintiffs' recovery of unpaid wages under federal and state laws. The
court flatly rejected this argument and allowed the plaintiffs' claims
to proceed.
In reaching this decision, the court
distinguished Hoffman by finding that awarding damages to
plaintiffs for violations of federal and state labor law would not
thwart the Immigration Reform and Control Act's (IRCA's) purpose of
reducing employment opportunities for unauthorized immigrants. To the
contrary, the court found that finding for the defendants would
undermine IRCA by allowing employers "to escape liability arising from
violations of federal and state labor laws [and] provid[ing] incentives
to hire unauthorized aliens."
Similarly, the court held that IRCA does not
prevent the plaintiffs from bringing their RICO claim, which is based on
the defendants' alleged violations of immigration law. The plaintiffs'
alleged that the defendants sold them falsified immigration documents so
that they could work for the company, L&L. One plaintiff claimed that
the defendants deducted the purchase price of these documents from his
paycheck. The plaintiffs also testified that when they complained of
unpaid wages and inadequate employer-provided housing, the defendants
threatened them with deportation.
The court also granted the plaintiffs'
request to file a motion for class action certification against the
defendants, the class consisting of other L&L employees who did not
receive hourly and overtime wages in accordance to federal and state
law.
This case is problematic because the court
required the plaintiffs to respond to discovery questions regarding
their immigration status, despite the fact that the same court later
held immigration status irrelevant to the plaintiffs' claims for unpaid
wages and RICO. While the most recent decision in this case is in
accord with the numerous federal court decisions that have held that
immigration status is irrelevant to claims for unpaid wages for work
already performed, the earlier court decision requiring plaintiffs to
respond to discovery regarding their status is out of step with numerous
court cases finding this information undiscoverable. (For a summary of
court cases finding immigration status irrelevant in claims for unpaid
wages, see "Hoffman: Lower Courts Limit Impact of High Court's Decision
Barring Undocumented Worker from Receiving Back Pay,"
IRU, May 30, 2002. For a
discussion of federal case law finding immigration status undiscoverable
in Fair Labor Standards Act suits, see "Michigan
Appeals Court Rules that Workers' Social Security Numbers Are Not
Relevant to Their Suit for Back Pay of Wages Earned but Not Paid," IRU, June 30, 2005.) The court's
decision to require the plaintiffs to respond to discovery questions
regarding their immigration status cannot be squared with its decision
that this information is irrelevant to claims for unpaid wages. At a
minimum, practitioners representing clients in similar suits should
request any discovery information on immigration status to be viewed in
camera only and sealed so that plaintiffs do not face additional threats
of retaliation based on their status.
This case is also unusual because it presents
a RICO claim by undocumented workers for unpaid wages based on their
employer's alleged violation of immigration law. More usually, RICO
claims are brought by documented workers claiming a loss in wages based
on an employer's knowing violation of immigration laws. (See, e.g.,
"Appellate
Court Dismisses RICO Claim against Employer for Allegedly Hiring
Undocumented Workers," IRU,
Apr. 2, 2004.) Given the difficultly of establishing RICO claims, the
plaintiffs' claim for unpaid wages should probably have been limited to
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law. In
addition, the plaintiffs could have raised a claim for retaliation under
the FLSA, given the employer's alleged threat to call Immigration when
the plaintiffs complained of unpaid wages and inadequate housing
conditions.
Flores v.
Lawton Limehouse, Sr.,
2006 U.S. U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30433 (D.S.C. 2006).
|
