|
In a class action lawsuit brought by migrant and
seasonal agricultural workers against their employer for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), a federal district
court in Michigan held that the plaintiffs' immigration status was
irrelevant, noting that "the damage and prejudice which would result to
Plaintiffs' if discovery into their immigration status is permitted far
outweighs whatever minimal legitimate value such material holds for
Defendants."
In Galaviz-Zamora, et al. v. Brady Farms,
Inc., the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a protective
order that prohibits the defendants from obtaining such information from
the plaintiffs. This request came about after the defendants made
discovery requests of the plaintiffs, including interrogatories and
requests for production of documents, that sought to discover the
plaintiffs' immigration status. Among the defendants' discovery
requests were: "(1) Plaintiffs' social security numbers; (2) the
addresses of Plaintiffs' private residences; (3) copies of Plaintiffs'
tax returns (including all W-2s and 1099s); (4) copies of Plaintiffs'
driver's licenses or identification cards; (5) copies of Plaintiffs'
social security cards; (6) copies of Plaintiffs' passports; (7) copies
of Plaintiffs' Alien Registration Cards; (8) copies of Plaintiffs'
Employment Authorization Cards; (9) copies of Plaintiffs' voter's
registration cards; and (10) copies of each Plaintiff's United States
birth certificate or Certificate of Birth Abroad issued by the United
States of the Department of State."
The defendants opposed the granting of the
protective order, arguing that the plaintiffs' immigration status is
relevant to the issues of damages and standing to sue, as well as class
certification and credibility. The defendants relied on Hoffman
Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 533 U.S. 137 (2002), to support
their position that immigration status is relevant to establish standing
and damages. The court disagreed with the defendants. Citing Flores
v. Amigon, 233 F. Supp. 2d 462, 463 (E.D.N.Y. 2002), the court held
that Hoffman does not apply to circumstances such as "where the
plaintiffs have already performed the work for which unpaid wages [are]
being sought." Id. The court therefore found that immigration
status is not relevant to the issues of standing to sue or damages.
As to the remaining issues of the relevance of
immigration status to class certification and credibility, the court
again disagreed with the defendants, finding that immigration status was
not relevant to the plaintiffs' ability to represent other class
members. In making its decision, the court cited to other decisions
that have recognized the detrimental impact to immigrant workers
resulting from irrelevant inquiries into their immigration status.
Specifically, the court cited Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d
1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 2004), "recognizing that ‘while documented workers
face the possibility of retaliatory discharge for an assertion of their
labor and civil rights, undocumented workers confront the harsher
reality that, in addition to possible discharge, their employer will
likely report them to the INS and they will be subjected to deportation
proceedings or criminal prosecution.'" (For more on Rivera v. NIBCO,
Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 2004), see "9th Circuit Upholds Protective Order Limiting
Employers' Inquiries into Plaintiffs' Immigration Status,"
Immigrants' Rights Update,
June 18, 2004, p. 5.) The court also cited Flores v. Amigon, 233
F. Supp. 2d 462, 464–65 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. 2002), "recognizing that ‘if
forced to disclose their immigration status, most undocumented aliens
would withdraw their claims or refrain from bringing an action such as
this in the first instance . . . [which] would effectively eliminate the
FLSA as a means for protecting undocumented workers from exploitation
and retaliation.'"
Galaviz-Zamora,
et al. v. Brady Farms, Inc., 230 F.R.D. 499 (W.D. Mich. 2005).
By
Monica Guizar, NILC
employment policy attorney, and
Marielena
Hincapié,
NILC director of programs
guizar@nilc.org; hincapie@nilc.org
|
