|
By
Karen Tumlin
NILC Skadden Fellow
The Kansas Supreme Court has upheld the rights of undocumented
workers to hold their employers to employment contracts into which they
have entered, including oral contracts. The plaintiff in the case was a
cook for a Wichita fast food restaurant, Burrito Express. The
restaurant’s management had agreed to pay him $6 an hour but did not
make good on this promise. The plaintiff testified that he was paid
only $50 or $60 a week for up to 60 hours of work — resulting in a wage
of less than $1 an hour for many weeks. Throughout the proceedings, the
employer never contested this information. Instead, the employer
claimed that it did not need to pay the agreed-upon wage because the
worker was undocumented and therefore the underlying employment contract
was invalid.
The Kansas Dept. of Labor (DOL) initially awarded the plaintiff
nearly $4,000 in unpaid wages and interest for his earned but unpaid
wages, as well as an additional $3,720 as a penalty. The employer
appealed. The Kansas district court modified the DOL’s award, finding
that the worker was entitled only to payment at the minimum wage
because, since he was an undocumented immigrant, the underlying
employment contract was unlawful. In addition, the district court
overruled the penalty award, concluding that federal immigration policy
preempts the state wage law allowing such penalties to be awarded to
workers. To reach this decision, the district court relied on the U.S.
Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB,
535 U.S. 137 (2002). (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.)
On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court rejected the employer’s
contention that the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)
preempts state law that allows workers to sue to recover unpaid wages
for hours worked, including the provision allowing for a penalty for a
willful failure to pay earned wages.
In reaching this decision, the court first noted that while
Hoffman concerned a conflict between two federal laws, at issue in
the present case was a perceived conflict between a federal law and a
state law. In such cases, the court observed, preemption is not
assumed. The court then reviewed the extensive case law from other
jurisdictions similarly rejecting the notion that Hoffman can be
read as preempting state employment and labor laws. Among other cases,
the court discussed Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC, 6 N.Y.3d 338
(N.Y. Ct. App. 2006), and Design Kitchen and Baths v. Lagos, 882
A.2d 817 (Md. Ct. App. 2005). (For more information on Balbuena,
see “New York High Court Rules That Undocumented Workers Injured on the
Job Are Not Precluded from Being Awarded Lost Wages,” IRU, May 23,
2006. For more information on Design Kitchen, see “California and Maryland Courts Uphold
Undocumented Workers’ Rights to Workers’ Compensation,” IRU,
Dec. 22, 2005.)
In the end, the court held that enforcing the worker’s
employment contract would promote “the strong and longtime Kansas public
policy of protecting wages and wage earners.” With respect to the
penalty against the employer, the court concluded that “the legislature
has created a stiff penalty for employers failing to pay wages already
earned . . . [and a decision] to deny or dilute an action for wages
earned but not paid on the ground that such employment contracts are
‘illegal,’ would thus directly contravene the public policy of the state
of Kansas.”
The court’s decision makes clear that undocumented workers are
entitled to awards for wages earned but not paid and that employers will
be liable for the agreed-upon wage. In rejecting the employer’s
argument that it need not pay the agreed-upon wage, the court emphasized
that the work performed by undocumented workers is not illegal, even
though the worker may lack work authorization. For that reason, the
court reasoned, the employer should not be able to profit by pocketing
the difference between the contract wage and the minimum wage.
This decision is significant because when undocumented workers
have sought to enforce their basic labor, employment and civil rights,
employers have often attempted to evade liability by raising the issue
of the workers’ immigration status and arguing that the underlying
employment relationship was unlawful. The Kansas Supreme Court’s
reasoning and rejection of this argument in the context of a claim for
unpaid wages can be applied with equal force to other contexts.
Coma Corp. v. Coria, 2007 Kan. LEXIS 156 (Kan. 2007).
|
