Term
| Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting-Facts |
|
Definition
Various business and civil-rights organizations challenged the enforceability of The Legal Arizona Worker's Act ("LAWA") in an Arizona federal district court. They argued that federal law preempted LAWA, which requires Arizona employers to use the federal E-Verify employment verification system and revokes business licenses of those who hire unauthorized workers. The district court upheld the statute.
On appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that LAWA was not preempted explicitly or impliedly by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act ("IRCA"). The court reasoned that IRCA although IRCA expressly preempts all state and local laws imposing sanctions for hiring or recruiting unauthorized aliens, it excepts licensing laws – like LAWA – from preemptive reach. The court also reasoned that mandating the use of E-Verify is not impliedly preempted by IRCA because Congress could have, but did not, expressly forbid states form requiring E-Verify participation. |
|
|
Term
| Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting-Issue |
|
Definition
| An Arizona law requires state employers to check the immigration status of job applicants through a federal computer database, although the federal law creating the database makes its use voluntary. Arizona also revokes the business license of state companies that hire undocumented workers. Are these provisions pre-empted by federal immigration laws? |
|
|
Term
| Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting-Decision |
|
Definition
| No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court holding in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts. "Arizona's licensing law falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the States and therefore is not expressly preempted." |
|
|
Term
| Arizona v. United States-Facts |
|
Definition
On April 23, 2010, the Arizona State Legislature passed S.B. 1070; Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law. On July 6, 2010, the United States sought to stop the enforcement of S.B. 1070 in federal district court before the law could take effect. The district court did not enjoin the entire act, but it did enjoin four provisions. The court enjoined provisions that (1) created a state-law crime for being unlawfully present in the United States, (2) created a state-law crime for working or seeking work while not authorized to do so, (3) required state and local officers to verify the citizenship or alien status of anyone who was lawfully arrested or detained, and (4) authorized warrantless arrests of aliens believed to be removable from the United States.
Arizona appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the United States had shown that federal law likely preempted: (a) the creation of a state-crime for violation of federal registration laws, (b) the creation of a state-crime for work by unauthorized aliens, (c) the requirement to verify citizenship of all detained persons, and (d) the authorization for police officers to effect warrantless arrests based on probable cause of removability from the United States. Arizona appealed the court's decision. |
|
|
Term
| Arizona v. United States-Issue |
|
Definition
| Do the federal immigration laws preclude Arizona's efforts at cooperative law enforcement and preempt the four provisions of S.B. 1070 on their face? |
|
|
Term
| Arizona v. United States-Decision |
|
Definition
Yes for provisions 1, 2, and 4; No for provision 3. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a 5-3 majority, reversed in part and affirmed in part. The Supreme Court held that provision 1 conflicts with the federal alien registration requirements and enforcement provisions already in place. Provision 2 is preempted because its method of enforcement interferes with the careful balance Congress struck with federal laws on unauthorized employment of aliens. Provision 4 is preempted because it usurps the federal government’s authority to use discretion in the removal process. This creates an obstacle to carrying out the purposes and objectives of federal immigration laws.
The Court upheld provision 3 as constitutional on its face. This provision merely allows state law enforcement officials to communicate with the federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement office during otherwise lawful arrests. The provision has three limitations that protect individual rights: a detainee is presumed not to be an illegal alien if he/she produces a valid Arizona drivers license; an officer may not consider race, color, or national origin during a check; and the check must be implemented in a manner consistent with federal law. Justice Kennedy noted that this decision did not foreclose any future constitutional challenges to the law on an as applied basis. |
|
|
Term
| Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB-Facts |
|
Definition
| Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. hired Jose Castro on the basis of documents appearing to verify his authorization to work in the United States. After Castro engaged in union-organizing activities, Hoffman laid him off. The National Labor Relations Board (Board) found that the layoff violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and ordered backpay for Castro. At a compliance hearing, Castor testified before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that he was born in Mexico, that he had never been legally admitted to, or authorized to work in, this country, and that he gained employment with Hoffman only after tendering a birth certificate that was not his. The ALJ found that Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which makes it unlawful for employers knowingly to hire undocumented workers or for employees to use fraudulent documents to establish employment eligibility, precluded Castro's award. In reversing, the Board noted that the most effective way to further the immigration policies embodied in IRCA is to provide the NLRA's protections and remedies to undocumented workers in the same manner as to other employees. The Court of Appeals enforced the Board's order. |
|
|
Term
| Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB-Issue |
|
Definition
| Does the National Labor Relations Board have the discretion to award backpay to an undocumented alien employee who was not legally authorized to work in the United States? |
|
|
Term
| Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB-Decision |
|
Definition
| No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that such relief is foreclosed by federal immigration policy, as expressed by Congress in the IRCA. The Court reasoned that allowing the Board to award backpay to illegal aliens ran counter to explicit statutory prohibitions critical to federal immigration policy and that however broad the Board's discretion to fashion remedies when dealing only with the NLRA was, it was not so unbounded as to authorize the award. "Congress has expressly made it criminally punishable for an alien to obtain employment with false documents. There is no reason to think that Congress nonetheless intended to permit backpay where but for an employer's unfair labor practices, an alien- employee would have remained in the United States illegally, and continued to work illegally, all the while successfully evading apprehension by immigration authorities," wrote Chief Justice Rehnquist. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Attrition through enforcement
2. “Rational” → self-deport
(2008= 457,000 eligible , only 8 agreed to leave)
3. Stats → Did not confirm
4. “Sunken Costs” |
|
|
Term
| EEOC v. Premier Operator Services-Facts |
|
Definition
→ Rule ( broad scope, business reason)
→ . memo
→ 2 = retaliation
→ 6 refused to term
→ Owner called employee’s “wetbacks” |
|
|
Term
| EEOC v. Premier Operator Services-Procedures |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| EEOC v. Premier Operator Services-Issue |
|
Definition
| Whether Premier’s rule violates Title VII |
|
|
Term
| EEOC v. Premier Operator Services-Holding |
|
Definition
YES
1. overly broad scope
2. No business reason |
|
|
Term
| EEOC v. Premier Operator Services-Remedies |
|
Definition
→ $60k
→ $50k x 13 = $650k for punitive charge |
|
|
Term
| Garcia v. Spun Steak Co.-Facts |
|
Definition
| The Plaintiffs allegation of racism commentary then Spun Steak created a rule: “ must speak english when working”. This was Spun Steak final warning to Garcia |
|
|
Term
| Garcia v. Spun Steak Co.-Procedure |
|
Definition
Title VII (national origin)
→ EEOC: see rule as illegal.
→ U.S district court agrees
→ No trial
→ violates Title VII
**Defendant does an appeal |
|
|
Term
| Garcia v. Spun Steak Co.-Issue |
|
Definition
| Whether rule violates Title VII? (2-1) Decision |
|
|
Term
| Garcia v. Spun Steak Co.-Holding |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Garcia v. Spun Steak Co.-Plaintiff |
|
Definition
| Two individuals ( Garcia & Labor Union → legal standing) |
|
|
Term
| National Origin Discrimination |
|
Definition
→ Title VII (Civil Rights Act of 1964)
→ Federal Law
→ 15+ employees
→ Covers employment discrimination: race, color, sex, religion, and national origin |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1.Define
a.place of birth
b.ethnicity
c.perceived
2.Customer preference - violation
3.Accent discrimination - “materially interferred”
4.Citizenship discrimination
a.illegal under IRCA (cannot require citizenship)
b.not a violation of title VI |
|
|
Term
| National Origin Discrimination cont. |
|
Definition
1. Scope of the rule:
(Broad? or narrow and tailored?)
2. Business reason:
→ customer courtesy / preferences
→ co- worker courtesy
→ safety |
|
|
Term
| Fernandez-Lopez v. Cervino-Facts |
|
Definition
Cervino GM contractor
a.“plaster” 10 years NYC union
b.Cervino project-rehab building
c.F-L injured
d.F-L undocumented alien |
|
|
Term
| Fernandez-Lopez v. Cervino-Procedure |
|
Definition
| F-L brings workers comp claim → Judgement (FL) BUT Cervino (appeals) |
|
|
Term
| Fernandez-Lopez v. Cervino-Issue |
|
Definition
| Whether FL (undoc alien) is eligible for NJ worker’s comp? |
|
|
Term
| Fernandez-Lopez v. Cervino-Holding |
|
Definition
YES= FL is eligible
1. First impression (NO NJ precedent)
2.Court looked to other jurisdiction, majority favored benefits
3.NJ workers comp law
a.employee broadly defined
4.Public policy supports decision
a.deferent |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Flores worked for Amigon bakery for 3 years |
|
|
Term
| Flores v. Amigon-Procedure |
|
Definition
| Flores sues Amigon under FLSA ( unpaid OT) |
|
|
Term
| Flores v. Amigon-Discovery |
|
Definition
(Amigon questions about Flores immigration status)
→ Relevant= Flores asks for motion for a “protective order”
→ Hoffman Plastics- not relevant (NLRA) back pay
→ FLSA = remedy for time already worked |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Whether Flores’s immigration status is relevant to FLSA remedies? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Flores v. Amigon-Disposition |
|
Definition
| Granted, protective order |
|
|
Term
| I-9 Form:Employee Independent Contractors |
|
Definition
Findings:
1. Unsafe work conditions
2. Wage theft
3. Violence ? job
4. Not use legal process
→ municipal court ( police report)
→ wage theft statute |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Industries: construction, landscape, etc
→ undocumented workers |
|
|
Term
| Major Requirements for MSPA are: |
|
Definition
1.farm labor contractors and each of their employees who will be performing farm labor contractor activities must obtain a certificate of registration from the U.S. Department of Labor before they can start farm labor contractor activities,
2.farm labor contractors, agricultural employers, and agricultural associations must disclose to migrant and seasonal agricultural workers information about wages, hours, and other working conditions, and about housing when provided,
3.workers must be provided with written statements of earnings and deductions,
4.if transportation is provided, vehicles used must be safe and properly insured, and
5.if housing is provided, it must meet safety and health standards. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Major Federal law that deals exclusively with agricultural employment |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Migrant + Seasonal Worker Protection Act |
|
|
Term
Employer
v
Contractors
v
Crew Leader
v
Farm Workers |
|
Definition
1. Contractors must register with US DOC
2. Written disclosure terms of employment
3. Paid when promised
4. Comply safety regulations (transp , housing)
5. Maintain pay records |
|
|
Term
| +20 years of “enforcement only policy” |
|
Definition
1. Billions wasted
2. Less circular migration
3. Pushing Undoc Underground
4. Deaths to immigrants
5. Smuggler
6. Decreased wages/employer profits |
|
|
Term
| Possible Solutions: Comprehensive reform pathway to legalization |
|
Definition
→ full labor rights
→ tax w/h
→ consumers
→ +1.5 Trillion GDP over 10 years |
|
|
Term
| Possible Solutions: Temp Workers (temporary status) |
|
Definition
→ some labor protections
→ $ 192 billion GDP |
|
|
Term
| Possible Solutions: Mass Deportation |
|
Definition
→ seal the border
→ Impossible NI-cost of deportation
→ GDP loss $2.7 trillion |
|
|
