Labor/Employment
Aug. 7, 2002
Decision Clarifies Rights of Aliens
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge ruled Monday that the U.S. Supreme Court's Hoffman decision in March doesn't flatly stop an undocumented alien from seeking back pay.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer gives the green light to a lawsuit by Macan Singh. He is trying to recover about $70,000 in unpaid wages from his former employer, who brought Singh from India to work as a cashier at several East Bay gas stations.
Breyer's ruling reconciles the narrow decision in Hoffman with two federal laws: the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Immigration Reform Control Act.
Singh's federal suit seeks damages for retaliation by his employer, who turned him in to the Immigration and Naturalization Service last year one day after he settled the wages issue in Alameda County Superior Court.
The employer, Charanjit Jutla, is Singh's uncle. Jutla agreed in the state court settlement that he owes Singh for about three years of work, then phoned the INS. Singh has been in INS detention for the past 14 months.
Breyer's memorandum and order reject Jutla's contention that the retaliation claim should be dismissed because Singh has no cause of action under Hoffman Plastic Compounds Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 122 S.Ct. 1275 (2002).
That case held that back pay is not an available remedy for undocumented workers who bring claims under the National Labor Relations Act.
"The court held that to award back pay to an illegal alien for years of work 'not performed' ran counter to the policies underlying the IRCA of 1986," Breyer wrote, referring to the immigration reform law.
"Hoffman does not, however, hold that an undocumented employee is barred from recovering unpaid wages for work actually performed, nor does it preclude other traditional remedies," Breyer wrote. Singh v. Jutla & C.D. & R. Oil Inc., C02-1130CRB.
Breyer also pointed out that the Fair Labor Standards Act makes it unlawful for employers to retaliate or discriminate against a worker who complains of unjust treatment.
Singh's lawyers include Christopher Ho, senior staff attorney of the Legal Aid Society's Employment Law Center in San Francisco; Diane L. Webb and William W. Friedman, of Brobeck Phleger & Harrison in San Francisco; and Marielena Hincapié and Sara Campos of the National Immigration Law Center in Oakland.
Ho said Monday that Breyer's ruling is a welcome clarification of what Hoffman means.
"Hoffman sent a radical signal," Ho said. "There was an overreaction of the 'sky is falling' sort. It led some to ask whether immigrants have any rights at all. This is an important reaffirmation, post-Hoffman, that all workers have rights."
The retaliation claim, Ho said, "asks courts to protect workers who come forward and risk their immigration status by reporting unfair conditions."
Singh asked the Employment Law Center for help after getting meals and a place to sleep on his uncle's floor but no pay, Ho said.
"We believe the damages in this case are worth considerably more than the $70,000 in back wages," Ho said.
An attorney not involved in the case, Joannie Chiung-Yueh Chang, of San Francisco's Asian Law Caucus, hailed the ruling.
"The court is right on here," Chang said. "Protecting the rights of undocumented workers removes employers' incentive to exploit them."
Defense attorney Eugene Franklin of Hayward could not be reached for comment Monday.
John Roemer
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com