N.Y. Court, Relying On Hoffman, Denies Worker's Lost Earnings Award

IMMIGRANTS & EMPLOYMENT

Immigrants' Employment Rights and Remedies

N.Y. COURT, RELYING ON HOFFMAN, DENIES WORKER'S LOST EARNINGS AWARD
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 17, No. 7, November 24, 2003

A New York trial court has dismissed a worker's lost wages claim by granting the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, holding that under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), the employee's claim must be dismissed if he cannot establish that he is eligible to work in the United States. (For a summary of the Hoffman decision, see "Supreme Court Bars Undocumented Worker from Receiving Back Pay Remedy for Unlawful Firing," IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS UPDATE, Apr. 12, 2002, p. 10.)

The case involved an immigrant worker from Poland, Stanislaw Majlinger, who brought a claim to recover damages in the form of lost wages for injuries he allegedly sustained when he fell from a scaffold while installing siding. His claim was based on the defendants' alleged negligence and other labor law violations. After Majlinger initiated his claim, the defendants asked the court to compel him to providing evidence regarding his immigration status and his eligibility to work in the U.S., and the court granted their request. Majlinger admitted that he did not have any of the required documents to establish his work authorization.

The defendants then asked the court to dismiss Majlinger's claim for lost wages, arguing that the Hoffman decision rendered him ineligible for such an award. The court rejected Majlinger's argument that New York law specifically permits the recovery of lost wages by undocumented workers and that the Hoffman decision does not apply to his case because it was not intended to impact state laws.

Judge Christopher J. Mega of the Supreme Court of New York ruled in favor of the employers. In doing so, he wrote, "Although New York law has, in the past, permitted the recovery of lost wages for undocumented illegal aliens . . . the interpretation afforded to the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) by the United States Supreme Court in Hoffman would appear to require this court to conclude that plaintiff should not be permitted to recover for lost wages given his inability to prove he is legally authorized to work in this country." In making his ruling, the judge found the rationale guiding the Hoffman decision "critical," namely that to award back pay to undocumented immigrants for work not performed undermines the policy objective underlying IRCA of making the knowing employment of such immigrants unlawful and, consequently, "serves to marginalize federal immigration laws."

The judge found that Majlinger's case was similar-i.e., that the court would run contrary to "both the letter and the spirit of IRCA" if it sanctioned the recovery of Majlinger's lost wages for work not performed. He added, "It would be consistent to reserve lost wages awards to those workers who have demonstrated a right to be lawfully employed and reinstated in their jobs." However, the judge also recognized that other courts in New York have expressed contrary opinions, and he suggested at the conclusion of his opinion that the New York appellate courts may need to provide guidance to resolve this issue.

Stanislaw Majlinger v. Casino Contracting, et al., 2003 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1248 (Oct. 1, 2003).