 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ulloa v. Al's All Tree Service9/22/2003
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Miscellaneous Reports.
(*1)
(*2)
(*3) DECISION AFTER INQUEST
This matter came before the Court, sitting as a Small Claims Court, for inquest on September 22, 2003, after the Defendant defaulted in appearance for trial. Plaintiff, an undocumented alien, has claimed against Defendant, a landscaper, for $1,000 in unpaid wages on 10 days in the summer of 2003, at the rate of $100 per day. After hearing the testimony of the Plaintiff, the Court finds that the wages for those days remain unpaid. The only question left to be resolved is whether the Plaintiff's status as an undocumented alien prevents his recovery, in whole or in part.
The undersigned has previously held in a few small claims cases that a plaintiff's undocumented status tainted an employment contract with illegality, thereby preventing the Court from enforcing it. After further consideration, the Court modifies that view in part.
Prior to 2002, there was little doubt that the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC §201 - 219 ("FLSA"), and its New York equivalent (Labor Law §650-665), would have required the Defendant to pay at least minimum wage, regardless of the Plaintiff's immigration status, and that failure to pay any wage was a failure to pay minimum wage. [Patel v Quality Inn South, 846 F2d 700 (11th Cir 1988)]. In 2002, however, the U.S. Supreme Court made the issue somewhat more complicated.
In Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v National Labor Relations Board, 535 US 137, 122 S Ct 1275, 152 L Ed 2d (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that an undocumented (*4)alien who remained in the United States was ineligible for an award of back pay under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") even though he had been laid off (in violation of the NLRA) for union organizing activity. In Sure-Tan, Inc. v NLRB, 467 US 883, 104 S Ct 2803, 81 L Ed 2d 732 (1984), the Supreme Court had previously ruled that an undocumented alien who had left the country was ineligible for such an award. Hoffman revisited the issue in a different factual and legislative setting.
In extending the Sure-Tan rule to the case where the alien plaintiff had not yet left the country, the Supreme Court majority chose to look through a "wider lens"at the policies underlying the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, §101(a)(1), 100 US Stat 3360, 8 USC §1324a ("IRCA"), enacted two years after Sure-Tan. The Court took extensive notice of the fact that the alien, named Castro, had obtained his employment in the first place by presenting fraudulent documents, an activity that is unlawful under IRCA. The Court found that allowing recovery of back pay under the NLRA would "trivialize" IRCA, because the basis of Castro's recovery, under Sure-Tan, could be only his continued residence in the United States, and that was made illegal under IRCA. Therefore, the Court found that IRCA overrode any competing considerations under the NLRA.
Cases subsequent to Hoffman have gone both ways on whether it affected the prior rule of law in regard to the recovery of wages in contexts other than the NLRA. The New York Supreme Court, Richmond County, has ruled in Majlinger v Casino Contracting Corp, 2003 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1248, that IRCA as interpreted by Hoffman prevents an (*5)undocumented alien from recovering lost wages in a personal injury lawsuit. [see also Cano v Mallory Management et al., 195 Misc2d 666, 760 NYS2d 816 (Sup Ct, Richmond County 2003)].
On the other hand, several Federal District Courts have ruled that a plaintiff's immigration status is irrelevant as a matter for discovery in a wage case
Page 1 2 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|