COMMENT

Hoffman, Its Progeny, and the Status of Undocumented Workers

Scott C. Murray *

I. INTrOduCTION.......................................................................................615II. BaCkgrOuNd..........................................................................................618

A. Labor and Employment Law............................................................619B. Cases Leading toHoffman...............................................................621C. Immigration Law............................................................................625D. The NLRA Still Applies to Undocumented Workers............................626E. Status-Based Assignment of Rights....................................................627

III. aNalysIs.................................................................................................629IV. CONClusION..........................................................................................638

I.INTrOduCTION

RamonHernandezofKent,Washington,wasfiredafterfilingseveralcom­plaintsthathedidnotreceivethousandsofdollarsinunpaidwages.1Heworkedatalocalbakeryforovertwoyears;hiswageswereconstantlywithheld.2Hernandezcontinued working at the bakery despite his repeatedly ignored complaints.3Finally, after the sum he was owed reached nearly $20,000, Hernandez madeonefinalcomplaint,whichledtohistermination.4Atfirstglance,Hernandez’ssituation appears easily resolvable, but his status as an undocumented workermakesanotherwiseroutineforayintostatelaborandemploymentlawamatterof national immigration policy. Given estimates that undocumented workerscurrentlycomprisefivepercentoftheAmericanworkforce,Hernandez’ssituationishardlyunique.5

* Candidate for J.D.,UniversityofWyoming,2011. Iwould like to thank theWyoming Law ReviewEditorialBoard,particularlyNickHaderlie,DevonStiles,KevinDaniels, andAmyStaehrfortheirhardworkandinsightfulcomments.Iwouldalsoliketothankmyfacultyadvisor,NoahNovogrodsky, forhelpingdevelopthe ideas that ledtothiscommentaswellasprovidingguidancethroughouttheprocessofcomposingandrefiningit.Finally,suchanendeavorwouldbemeaninglesswithoutthehelpandsupportoffriendsandfamily.Igivemanythankstoallofthosewhoofferedtheirtremendoussupportandencouragementalongtheway.

1 PatrickOppmann, Illegal Immigrants Struggle to Receive Back Pay,CNN.COM (Oct. 28,2009),http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/27/illegals.back.pay/.

2 Id.

3 Id.

4 Id.

5 SeeJuliaPreston,11.2 Million Illegal Immigrants in U.S. in 2010, Report Says; No Change from ’09,N.y.TIMEs,Feb.2,2011,atA15(citingastudyestimating8millionofthe11.2millionillegalimmigrantslivingintheUnitedStatesarepartoftheAmericanworkforce).

TheUnitedStateslegalsystemcontinuestostrugglewiththedauntingtaskof defining the rights and obligations of those lacking proper documentationliving and working within its borders.The debate over immigration is largelyrooted in discussions concerning the fate of the undocumented labor force.6The seminal case,Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 7onlyconfusesthealreadytenuouslegaldistinctionsbetweendocumentedand undocumented workers.8 In effect, Hoffman created a system that leavesundocumented workers—on the basis of their immigration status—withouttheremediesavailabletotheirauthorizedcounterparts.9UnderHoffmananditsprogeny, undocumented workers remain protected by labor and employmentlawsbutlacktheabilitytopursuethelegalremediesnormallyavailabletolegalworkers,thusplacingtheminanill­definedlegalspace.10

As recent events in Arizona, Oklahoma, Utah, and other states indicate,enforcingimmigrationlawshasbecomeaheatedissueatthestatelevelaswell.11

6 See id. (notingboththehighpercentageofundocumentedimmigrantsintheworkforceandthedebateovertheObamaAdministration’sworkplace­orientedimmigrationpolicies).

7 535U.S.137(2002).

8 SeeThomasJ.Walsh,HoffmanPlasticCompounds,Inc.v.NLRB: How the Supreme Court Eroded Labor Law and Workers Rights in the Name of Immigration Policy, 21law& INEq.313,339(2003).

9 KeithCunningham­Parmeter,Redefining the Rights of Undocumented Workers,58aM.u.l.rEV.1361,1401(2009)(“[Hoffman]constructsaworldinwhichcitizensareallowedtoseekredressforincidentsofdiscrimination,relegatingunauthorizedworkerstoalawlessremedialrealmtomatchtheirlawlessexistenceinthecommunity.”).

10 SeeHoffman,535U.S.at153–54(Breyer,J.,dissenting)(notingthemannerinwhichdenyingtheNationalLaborRelationsBoardremedialpowerwillsnubundocumentedworkers);Escobarv.SpartanSec.Serv.,281F.Supp.2d895,897(S.D.Tex.2003)(“[Hoffman]didnotspecificallyforecloseallremediesforundocumentedworkersunderthe[NLRA]orothercomparablefederallaborstatutes....”);see also Oppmann, supra note 1 (noting in some cases where the traditional remedies are notavailable,undocumentedworkershaveresortedtoprotestpolitics,effectivelyshamingemployersintocompliancewithlaborandemploymentlaws).

11 See, e.g.,ChicanosPorLaCausa,Inc.v.Napolitano,558F.3d856,869(9thCir.2009),cert. granted,130S.Ct.3498(2010)(affirmingthedistrictcourt’sdeterminationthatanArizonastatute,whichallowstheStatetorevokebusinesslicensesuponashowingthatabusinessemployedundocumentedworkers,isfaciallyvalid);ChamberofCommerceoftheUnitedStatesv.Edmondson,594 F.3d 742 (10th Cir. 2010) (holding federal immigration law preempted an Oklahoma lawdesigned to curb illegal immigration throughvarious employmentverification standards andbymakingitadiscriminatorypracticetodischargeacitizenorlegalworkerwhileknowinglyretaininganundocumentedworker);Reyesv.VanElk,Ltd.,56Cal.Rptr.3d604,618–19(Ct.App.2007)(holding“theprevailingwagelawandthepost­HoffmanstatutesarenotpreemptedbytheIRCA,”thereforeallowingplaintiffstobringsuchclaimsdespitetheirundocumentedstatus);Piscitelliv.ClassicResidencebyHyatt,973A.2d948,961(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2009)(holdingnoexpressorimpliedprivaterightofactionisavailableagainstbusinessesemployingundocumentedworkers);see alsoLeeDavidson,Senate Okays Utahns Sponsoring Immigrants,salTlakETrIBuNE(Mar.23,2011),http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51389489­76/bill­immigration­niederhauser­senate.html.csp(discussingabillthatcircumventsthefederalimmigrationprocessandallowsimmigrantstoliveandworkinUtahprovidedtheypassabackgroundcheckandhealthscreening,amongotherthings).

616 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11

Groups like the Minuteman Project—whose goals consist of raising publicawarenessofwhattheylabelanongoing“illegalalieninvasion”andadvocatingforenforcementofimmigrationlaws—increasethevisibilityofthedebate,aswellasexacerbatetherancorousdivideitcreates.12ApollconductedinMayof2010indicatedfifty­threepercentofrespondentsfelt“illegalimmigrantsmakinglowwagesmightmakeU.S.employerslesswillingtopayAmericanworkersadecentwage.”13Thereiscontinuingpressuretoaddresstheseissuesatboththestateandnationallevels.

Currently,theminimalrightsaffordedundocumentedworkersareindangeroferosion.14CaselawindicatestheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthascreatedahierarchyofnationalpoliciesplacingimmigrationstatusoverconsiderationsofcivillibertiesandhumanrights.15TheprivilegingofimmigrationlawandpolicyabovethepoliciesoflaborandemploymentlawparallelsashiftintheUnitedStatesfromaterritorialconceptionofmembershiptoastatus­centricapproach.16Thiseffectively creates a population of undocumented workers whose immigrationstatus potentially eliminates protections under labor and employment laws.17

12 JimGilchrist,An Essay by Jim Gilchrist,22gEO.IMMIgr.l.J.415,416(2008)(discussingthegoalsof theMinutemanProject fromtheperspectiveofoneof thegroup’sco­founders); see JamesDuffLyall,Vigilante State: Reframing the Minuteman Project in American Politics and Culture,23gEO.IMMIgr.l.J.257,258(2009)(notingthesubstantialimpacttheMinutemanProjectandsimilargroupshaveonthedebatesurroundingimmigration).

13 LydiaSaad,Americans Value Both Aspects of Immigration Reform,gallup(May4,2010),http://www.gallup.com/poll/127649/Americans­Value­Aspects­Immigration­Reform.aspx.

14 SeeFloresv.Albertsons, Inc.,2002WL1163263,at*5(C.D.Cal.2002);D.CarolinaNúñez, Fractured Membership: Deconstructing Territoriality to Secure Rights and Remedies for the Undocumented Worker,2010wIs.l.rEV.817,872(2010)(arguingthatcourts increasinglyusestatusasabasisofassigningrights,oftentimestodenycertainrightstraditionallyprotectedundera territorial approach); Huyen Pham, When Immigration Borders Move, 61 Fla. l. rEV. 1115,1153–54 (2009) (discussing the “steady chipping away” at rights of undocumented workers inbothemploymentandothercontexts);ShahidHaque,Note,Beyond HoffmanPlastic: Reforming National Labor Relations Policy to Conform to the Immigration Reform and Control Act,79ChI.-kENTl.rEV.1357,1359(2005)(notingtheuncertaintyofundocumentedworkers’rightsinthewakeofHoffman).

15 See Sarah H. Cleveland, Legal Status and Rights of Undocumented Workers: Advisory Opinion, 99aM. J. INT’ll.460,461 (“[O]nce an employment relationship is establishedwithanundocumentedworker,‘themigrantacquiresrightsasaworker,whichmustberecognizedandguaranteed, irrespectiveofhis regularor irregular status in theStateof employment.’” (quotingJuridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC­18/03,Inter­Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) No. 18, ¶ 134 (Sept. 17, 2003))); Núñez supra note 14, at 821(commentatingimmigrationstatus“oftendisplacesterritorialpresenceastheultimatedeterminantofmembership”).

16 SeeNúñez,supra note14,at851–52(notingtheHoffmanmajorityheldawardingaremedyaffordedbylaborlawsrunsafoulofthepoliciesunderlyingimmigrationlaw).

17 See, e.g.,HoffmanPlasticCompounds,Inc.v.NLRB,535U.S.137,151(2002);Davilav.Grimes,No.2:09­CV­407,2010WL1737121,at*2(S.D.OhioApr.29,2010)(“[T]heCourtrecognizesthatPlaintiffs[sic]statusinthiscountrymayimpacthisclaimforlostfuturewages.”).

2011 COMMENT 617

Further, it runs contrary to the policies behind the labor, employment, andimmigration laws purportedly informing court decisions.18 In order to furtherthesepoliciesandplaceundocumentedworkersinaclearlydefinedandcoherentlegalframework,CongressshouldamendtheImmigrationReformandControlActof1986(IRCA)toincludelanguagethatexpresslyforbidsimmigrationlawfromtrumpingotherlegalregimes.19

This comment begins by discussing the National Labor Relations Act(NLRA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).20These statutes—and thedefinitionscontainedwithinthem—areatthecenterofanincreasinglyambiguousinteraction of labor, employment, and immigration law. After analyzing thesestatutesandassociatedcaselaw,thiscommentdiscussestheIRCA,whichmakesitunlawfulforemployerstoemployundocumentedworkers.21Afterthepassageof the IRCA,American courts began applying theNLRAand theFLSAwithaneyetoimmigrationlaw,aninteractionthatculminatedintheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt’sdecisioninHoffman.22ThiscommentanalyzesHoffmananditsprogeny,notingthepotentialdangerinthecontinuedapplicationofHoffman’sreasoning.23Analysisoftherelevantstatutesandcaselawrevealsthatbyrelegatingundocumentedworkerstoalegalrealminwhichremediesarescarcelyavailable,the courts ultimately undermine the policies behind immigration, labor, andeducationlaw,therebyleavingtheresponsibilityforcorrectingtheconfusingstateofthelawtoCongress.24

II.BaCkgrOuNd

Thissectionbeginsbyexplainingthelaborandemploymentlawsrelevanttothediscussionoftherightsofundocumentedworkers.25Itthenconsidersanumberofcasesfocusingonprovisionsofthoselawsaffectingundocumentedworkers.26Thissectionthendiscussesimmigrationlawandahandfulofrelatedcasesbeforeexaminingtheleadingcaseinthearea,Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National

18 See Hoffman,535U.S.at153(Breyer,J.,dissenting)(opiningthatawardinganundocumentedworkerabackpayawardwouldfurtherthegoalsofbothlaborandimmigrationlaws).

19 See infranotes183–85andaccompanyingtext.

20 See infranotes29–49andaccompanyingtext.

21 See infra notes50–95andaccompanyingtext(discussingemploymentandlaborlawcases);infranotes96–100andaccompanyingtext(discussingimmigrationlaw,particularlytheIRCA).

22 See infra notes102–10andaccompanyingtext(discussingseveralcasesleadingtoHoffman);infra notes111–24(discussingHoffman).

23 See infra notes136–78andaccompanyingtext.

24 See infra notes179–85andaccompanyingtext.

25 See infra notes 29–49andaccompanyingtext.

26 See infra notes50–95andaccompanyingtext.

618 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11

Labor Relations Board.27 Finally, this section examines the traditional methodsof assigning rights to immigrants aswell as the implicationsofmembership inobtainingrights.28

A. Labor and Employment Law

LargelyasaresponsetotheGreatDepressionofthe1920s,CongresspassedtheNLRAin1935.29IntheNLRA’spolicydeclaration,Congressaddressedtheproblems that spurred the legislation, claiming unequal relationships betweenemployers and employees affected commerce because employers were able tomaintainsubstandardwagesandworkingconditions.30Congressimplementedapolicydesignedtoeradicatethoseobstaclesbyencouragingcollectivebargainingandgrantingworkerstherighttoorganize.31TheNLRAstabilizedtheworkplaceby supporting unions and regulating the relationships between labor andmanagement.32 Additionally, the NLRA created the National Labor RelationsBoard(NLRB)toadministerandimplementtheprovisionsofthestatute.33

TheNLRAexpresslydefinesemployees’rightsregardinglaboractivity.34Thestatutestatesthateveryemployeehastherighttoself­organization,unionactivity,

27 See infra notes96 –110andaccompanyingtext(discussingimmigrationlaw,generally,andaselectgroupofcases);infra notes111–24andaccompanyingtext(discussingtheHoffman decision).

28 See infra notes125–35andaccompanyingtext.

29 arChIBaldCOxETal.,laBOrlaw:CasEsaNdMaTErIals75(14thed.2006).

30 29 U.S.C. § 151 (2006). The NLRA contemplates the lopsided relationship betweenemployersandemployees:

Theinequalityofbargainingpowerbetweenemployeeswhodonotpossessfullfreedomofassociationoractuallibertyofcontract,andemployerswhoareorganizedinthecorporateorotherformsofownershipassociationsubstantiallyburdensandaffectstheflowofcommerce,andtendstoaggravaterecurrentbusinessdepressions,bydepressingwageratesandthepurchasingpowerofwageearnersinindustryandbypreventingthestabilizationofcompetitivewageratesandworkingconditionswithinandbetweenindustries.

Id.

31 Id.

32 ChristopherBrackman,Note,Hoffmanv.NLRB, Creating More Harm than Good: Why the Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Illegal Workers a Backpay Remedy Under the National Labor Relations Act,71uMkCl.rEV.717,718 (2003) (discussing thegenesisof theNLRA);Haque,supra note14,at79(notingtheNLRA’sfocuson“labor­managementrelationsofbusinessesengagedininterstatecommerce”).

33 29U.S.C.§§153–156;see EllenDannin,NLRA Values, Labor Values, American Values,26BErkElEyJ.EMp.&laB.l.223,229(2005)(indicatingthatthepoliciesoftheNLRAdeemthemannerinwhichworkersaretreatedascentraltoademocraticsociety);Brackman,supra note32,at718.

34 29U.S.C.§157.

2011 COMMENT 619

andcollectivebargaining.35Furthermore,employeesgenerallyhavetherighttorefrainfromengaginginsuchactivities.36TheNLRAalsodescribesunfairlaborpractices,whichitthenempowerstheNLRBtopreventthroughceaseanddesistorders,reinstatementofemployment,backpay,andpossiblyinjunctiverelief.37Assuch,inordertoreceivetheprotectionsoftheNLRA,onemustbeanemployee.38

The definition of “employee” is a source of much legal and politicaldispute.UndertheNLRA,“employee”isadefinedtermandencompasses“anyemployee.”39Thestatutegoesontoenumeratealistofsevenexceptionstotheotherwiseexpansivedefinition.40Notably,noneofthelistedexceptionsmentionundocumentedworkersorimmigrationstatus.41

In the seventy­fiveyears since theNLRA’spassage,numerousdecisionsbytheNLRBandAmericancourtshaveaddressedthemannerinwhichtheNLRAis applied to undocumented workers.42 Many of these cases have struggled tolocateundocumentedworkerswithinthedefinitionalframeworkoftheNLRA,particularlyontheissueofwhetherundocumentedworkersare“employees”underthestatute.43WhilelaborlawsliketheNLRAdealwithworkersandtheircollectiverelationshipswithmanagement,employmentlawsprotecttheindividualrightsof

35 Id.

36 Id.

37 Id.§§158,160.

38 Id.§157.

39 Id.§152(3)(emphasisadded).Thedefinitionincludesthoseindividualswhoseemploymentwasterminatedbecauseofanyunfairlaborpracticeorlabordispute:

Theterm“employee”shallincludeanyemployee...andshallincludeanyindividualwhoseworkhasceasedasaconsequenceof,orinconnectionwith,anycurrentlabordisputeorbecauseofanyunfairlaborpractice,andwhohasnotobtainedanyotherregularandsubstantiallyequivalentemployment....

Id.

40 Id.Theexceptionsincludeagriculturallaborers,domesticservants,individualsemployedbytheirparentsorspouses,independentcontractors,supervisors,apersonemployedbyanemployersubjecttotheRailwayLaborAct,andanyotherpersonemployedbyanemployerthatdoesnotmeetthestatutorydefinitionof“employer.”Id.;see also id.§152(2);Sure­Tan,Inc.v.NLRB,467U.S.883,892(1984)(notingthatundocumentedworkersarenotamongthelistedexceptionstothedefinitionof“employee”).

41 29U.S.C.§152(3).

42 EllenDannin,Legislative Intent and Impasse Resolution Under the National Labor Relations Act: Does Law Matter?, 15 hOFsTralaB.&EMp.l.J. 11, 12 (1997); see, e.g.,Hoffman PlasticCompounds,Inc.v.NLRB,535U.S.137,151–52(2002);Sure-Tan, Inc.,467U.S.at891.

43 See, e.g.,Sure-Tan, Inc.,467U.S.at891–92;DelReyTortilleria,Inc.v.NLRB,967F.2d1115,1118–19.

620 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11

employees.44TheFLSA,oneofthepreeminentemploymentlaws,hasexperiencedasimilartrajectoryastheNLRAwithrespecttoundocumentedworkers.

CongresspassedtheFLSAthreeyearsaftersigningtheNLRAintolaw.45Itprovidesemployeeswithsuchprotectionsasminimumwagesandmaximumhourstocurblaborconditionsthaterodethe“minimumstandardoflivingnecessaryforhealth,efficiency,andgeneralwell­beingofworkers.”46LiketheNLRAbeforeit,theFLSAdefines“employee”inaspecific,albeitbroadmanner.47Generally,theFLSA’sdefinitionincludesall individualsemployedbyemployers.48Withinthelistedexceptions,thereisnomentionofundocumentedworkers,illegalaliens,orimmigrationstatus.49

B. Cases Leading to Hoffman

BoththeNLRAandtheFLSAwerepassedwithinafewyearsofeachotherasapartoftheNewDeallegislation.50Assuch,thepoliciesbehindthestatutesare similar, and both employ extremely broad definitions of “employee.”51Accordingly,courtshaveusedonestatute’sdefinitionofemployeetogivecontextto the other and often use the definitions interchangeably within the contextofimmigration.52

44 See BenjaminI.Sachs,Employment Law as Labor Law,29CardOzOl.rEV.2685,2688(2008)(statingthetraditionalview“thatlaborandemploymentlawconstitutedichotomous,andinafundamentalrespectincompatible,regulatoryregimes”).Compare Marka.rOThsTEIN&laNCElIEBMaN,EMplOyMENTlaw:CasEsaNdMaTErIals33(6thed.2007)(notingthatwhilecollectivebargaining is important to employment law, employment law addresses “individual rather thancollectiverights”),with BlaCk’slawdICTIONary(9thed.2009)(defininglaborlawas“governingtherelationshipbetweenemployersandemployees,esp.lawgoverningthedealingsofemployersandtheunionsthatrepresentemployees”).

45 Compare NationalLaborRelationsAct,Pub.L.No.74­198,49Stat.449(1935)(codifiedasamendedat29U.S.C.§§151–169(2006)),with FairLaborStandardsAct,ch.676,§1,52Stat.1060(1938)(codifiedasamendedat29U.S.C.§§201–219(2006)).

46 29U.S.C.§202.

47 Id.§203(e).

48 Id. § 203(e)(1) (“Except as [otherwise] provided . . . the term ‘employee’ means anyindividualemployedbyanemployer.”).

49 Id.ExceptionstotheFLSA’sdefinitionofemployeeincludeemployeesofpublicagencies,intra­family agricultural employees, and volunteers performing services for public agencies. Id.§203(e)(2)–(4).

50 See SeanFarhang&IraKatznelson,The Southern Imposition: Congress and Labor in the New Deal and Fair Deal,19sTud.aM.pOl.dEV.1,2(acknowledgingboththeNLRAandtheFLSAwerepartofthe“NewDeallaborregime”).

51 RutherfordFoodCorp.v.McComb,331U.S.722,723(1947);Patelv.QualityInnS.,846F.2d700,703n.3(11thCir.1988)(notingthe“NLRA’sdefinitionalframeworkisvirtuallyidenticaltothatoftheFLSA”);seeAndrewS.Lewinter,HoffmanPlasticCompoundsv.NLRB: An Invitation to Exploit,20ga.sT.u.l.rEV.509,526(2003).

52 See Rutherford Food Corp.,331U.S.at723;Patel,846F.2dat703n.3;Lewinter, supra note51,at526.

2011 COMMENT 621

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed theissue of whether undocumented workers fit within the NLRA’s definition of“employee”inNLRB v. Apollo Tire Co.53InApollo,anemployee’smothermadeacomplainttotheDepartmentofLaborregardingherson’swithheldovertimepay.54Shewasgivencomplaintformsforherson,whichshealsodistributedtootheremployees.55Sixofthesevenemployeeswhofiledcomplaintswerelaidoff.56TheNLRBissuedApolloTireaceaseanddesistorderforitsunfairlaborpracticesundersection157oftheNLRA.57

Onappeal,ApollocontendedthatCongressmeanttoexcludeundocumentedworkers from its definition of “employee” to avoid running afoul of nationalimmigration policy.58 The court disagreed, finding the statutory language,combinedwiththeNLRB’spastholdings,clearlyplacedundocumentedworkerswithinthescopeoftheNLRA.59Thecourtalsonotedthatrulingotherwisewouldencourageemployerstoseekundocumentedworkersasemployees,whichwouldcertainlyruncontrarytoimmigrationpolicy.60

The United States Supreme Court addressed this same issue in Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB.61InSure-Tan,adisgruntledemployeraskedtheImmigrationandNaturalizationService(INS)tochecktheimmigrationstatusofseveralemployeesaftertheyparticipatedinunionactivities.62WhenINSagentsvisitedSure­Tan’sgroundstheyarrestedfiveemployees,noneofwhomhadproperdocumentation.63Inlieuofofficialdeportationproceedings,theworkerswerepermittedtoleavetheUnitedStatesvoluntarilyandwereonabusforMexicowithinaday.64Uponhearingthecase,theNLRBdeterminedSure­TanviolatedtheNLRA’sprohibitionofunfairlaborpractices.65 Specifically, in reporting theworkers to INSmerely for their

53 604F.2d1180(9thCir.1977).

54 Id. at 1181. Before going to the Department of Labor, she complained to the generalmanager,whorespondedbytellingherhusbandthatifhiswifemadeaformalcomplaintshewouldbekilled.Id.

55 Id.

56 Id.at1182.

57 Id.;see also 29U.S.C.§157(2006).

58 Apollo Tire Co.,604F.2dat1182.

59 Id.at1182–83.

60 See id.at1183.JudgeKennedyarguedinaconcurringopinionthatleavingundocumentedworkers without labor law protections “would leave helpless the very persons who most needprotectionfromexploitativeemployerpractices.”Id.at1184.

61 467U.S.883,886(1984).

62 Id.at886–87.

63 Id.at887.

64 Id.

65 Id.at888.

622 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11

supportoftheunion,theNLRBfoundthatSure­Tanviolatedsections158(a)(1)and (3)of theNLRA.66Asa result, theNLRB issuedaceaseanddesistorderrequiringSure­Tantohaltitsunfairlaborpracticesandorderedreinstatementoftheemployeeswithbackpay.67

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed theNLRB’sorderbutmadeseveralmodificationsregardingreinstatementandbackpay.68 The court first determined that reinstatement would only be proper iftheworkers’presenceandworkauthorizationwerelegal.69Simplyput,inorderto get their jobs back, the workers must have first entered the United Stateslegally or adjusted their immigration status and obtained official employmentauthorization.70ThecourtalsofoundtheNLRB’sdecisionallowingreinstatementwithinsixmonthswasinadequateandfailedtogivetheemployeesareasonabletimetoarrangeforlegalentry.71Theappellatecourtheldthatwhilebackpayshouldnotbegivenforanyperiodoftimeduringwhichtheemployeeswereineligibletowork—whichinthiscasemeanttheentiredurationoftheiremployment—aminimumawardmustbesetinorderto“effectuatethepoliciesofthe[NationalLaborRelations]Act.” 72

The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Sure-Tan decision in partandreversedit inpart.73ThemajorityopinionanalyzedtheNLRA’sdefinitionof “employee” to determine whether the provisions of the NLRA applied toundocumented workers.74 Acknowledging that the NLRB’s construction ofthe termdeserved tremendous deference, theCourt nonetheless conducted itsownanalysisof the statutory language.75 It foundthatundocumentedworkersplainlyfallwithintheexpansivecategoryof“anyemployee”becausetheyarenotamongtheexpresslylistedexceptions.76TheCourtalsonotedsuchaconstructionfurtheredthepoliciesoftheNLRAby“encouragingandprotectingthecollective­

66 Sure­TanInc.,234N.L.R.B.1187,1187(1978).TheNLRAstatesthatemployeeshavecertainrightsofself­organizationandlaborinvolvementandthatanyattemptonthepartofanemployertointerferewiththoserightsisaviolation.See 29U.S.C.§157(a)(1)(2006).

67 Sure-Tan, Inc.,467U.S.at888–89.

68 Id.at889–90.

69 Id.at889.

70 See id.

71 Id.at889–90(orderingthatthereinstatementoffersbebothwritteninSpanishandheldopenforfouryears).

72 Id.at890(quotingSure­Tan,Inc.v.NLRB,672F.2d592,606(7thCir.1982)).

73 See id.at906.

74 Id.at891.

75 Id.

76 Id.at891–92.

2011 COMMENT 623

bargainingprocess.”77Further,theCourtconsideredwhetherSure­Tan’sreportingof its employees to the INSwasanunfairbusinesspractice, thereby renderingthecompanyliable.78Itdeterminedthattherearecertainoccasionsinwhichitis proper for an employer to report an illegal alien—when reporting criminalactivity,forexample.79InSure-Tan,however,theevidenceshowedthereportingwassolelyinretaliationfortheemployees’unionactivity,whichwasprotectedbytheNLRA.80Assuch,Sure­Tan’sactsviolatedtheNLRA.81

Although the majority affirmed the Seventh Circuit’s holding regardingthe applicationof theNLRA toundocumentedworkers, itdisagreedwith theappellatecourt’sremedialmodificationstotheNLRB’sorder.82TheCourtheldthatnotonlydidthelowercourtexceeditsauthority,butthatindoingsoitforcedtheNLRBtoactbeyonditsauthorityaswell.83Imposingaminimumsix­monthbackpayperiod,themajorityargued,wasbasedentirelyonspeculationandrancountertotheremedialpoliciesoftheNLRA.84Additionally,theappellatecourt’smodificationsregardingthereinstatementordersweredeterminedanintrusionon the significantdeference afforded to theNLRB.85TheCourtheld that theNLRBwastheappropriatebodytofashionremedies,notthecourts.86Assuch,theCourtremandedthecasetotheSeventhCircuitwithinstructionsfor ittoremand the case back to the NLRB to create a remedial order in compliancewiththeCourt’sopinion.87JusticesBrennan,Marshall,Blackmun,andStevensjoinedinthedecisionbutdisagreedwiththemajority’srejectionoftheremedialmodification.88 They argued that the Court created a situation in which anundocumented worker entitled to protections under the NLRA could be leftwithoutanyremedy.89

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed theissueagaininLocal 512 v. NLRB,usingtheSure-Tandecisionasaguide.90TheNLRBheldFelbro,Inc.violatedtheNLRAbyrefusingtoengageincollective

77 Id.at892.

78 Id.at894.

79 Id.at895.

80 Id.at895–96.

81 Id.

82 Id.at898–99.

83 Id. at899–900.

84 Id.at901.

85 Id.at905.

86 Id.

87 Id.at906.

88 Id.

89 Id.at911(“[T]hecontradictionintheCourt’sopinionistotal.”).

90 Local512,Warehouse&OfficeWorkers’Unionv.NLRB,795F.2d705(9thCir.1986).

624 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11

bargaining.91TheNLRB—basedonitsunderstandingofSure-Tan—modifieditsbackpayordertobeconditionedonashowingoftheemployees’legalstatus.92TheNinthCircuitfoundthisreadingofSure-Tanmisguided.93Sure-Tan,itargued,innowaypermittedtheNLRBtolookatanemployee’slegalstatusindetermininghiseligibilityforbackpay.94AccordingtotheNinthCircuit,Sure-Tan’sholdingmerely dealt with back pay to employees unavailable for work—and thereforeineligibleforbackpay—becausetheywereoutofthecountrywithlittleprospectoflegalreentry;theirimmigrationstatuswasincidental.95

C. Immigration Law

The primary law governing immigration and related matters is theImmigration and Nationality Act (INA).96 The INA remained silent on theissue of employment of undocumented workers until 1986, when CongresspassedtheImmigrationReformandControlAct(IRCA).97TheIRCAmadeitunlawfulforemployerstoknowinglyhireundocumentedworkers.98Further, itrequiredemployerstocomplywithanemploymentverificationsystemdesignedtopreventtheemploymentofundocumentedworkers.99Assuch, itcreatedanostensibleconflictbetweenimmigrationlawandtheprotectionspreviouslygiventoundocumentedworkersundertheNLRAandtheFLSA.100

CourtshaveinterpretedtheIRCAinavarietyofways.101InPatel v. Quality Inn South,theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheEleventhCircuitdeterminedthe IRCA did not prevent undocumented workers from receiving protectionundertheFLSA.102Itdisagreedwiththelowercourt’scontentionthatinpassing

91 Id.at708.

92 Id.

93 See id.at716–17.

94 Id.at717.

95 Id.at716–17.

96 8U.S.C.§§1101–1537(2006).

97 Id. §1324a; see Lewinter, supra note51, at 514–15;L.TracyHarris,Note,Conflict or Double Deterrence? FLSA Protection of Illegal Aliens and the Immigration Reform and Control Act,72MINN.l.rEV.900,900 (1988) (observing thatprior to thepassageof the IRCA, the INA“permittedemployerstohireillegalaliens”).

98 8U.S.C.§1324a(a)(1)(A).

99 Id.§1324a(a)(1)(B).

100 See Harris,supra note97,at900.

101 See KatiL.Griffith,United States: U.S. Migrant Worker Law: The Interstices of Immigration Law and Labor and Employment Law,31COMp.laB.l.&pOl’yJ.125,141(2009)(notingtheuncertaintyof the interactionof immigration, labor, andemployment law following the IRCA’spassage);infra notes102–24andaccompanyingtext.

102 846F.2d700,706(11thCir.1988).

2011 COMMENT 625

the IRCA, Congress implicitly altered the FLSA’s definition of “employee” byexcludingundocumentedworkers.103Thecourtalsodeterminedthatwhile theFLSAandtheNLRAareoftencoextensive,QualityInnSouth’sargumentthatSure-Tan’sstanceonbackpayprecludedPatelfromremedialrelieflackedmerit.104ThedecisionsconcerningremediesundertheNLRA,thecourtconcluded,hadnobearingontheFLSA’sremedialscheme.105

InDel Rey Tortilleria, Inc. v. NLRB,theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSeventhCircuitconsideredwhetheranNLRBorderrequiringanemployerissuebackpaytoseveralundocumentedworkersviolatedtheIRCA.106Thecourtdetermined the employees were ineligible to receive back pay under Sure-TanbecausetheywerenotlawfullypermittedtoliveandworkintheUnitedStates.107TheworkersweredischargedbeforetheIRCAbecamelaw,whichledthecourttoacknowledgeitsholdingonlyappliedtopre­IRCAdischarges.108Despitethatlimitation,however,thecourtthenstatedthattheIRCA“clearlybars”theNLRBfromawardingbackpay toundocumentedworkers.109 In2002, this issuewasexaminedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt inHoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB.110

D. The NLRA Still Applies to Undocumented Workers

In 1988, Jose Castro was hired by Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. toprepare various pharmaceutical products.111 Shortly thereafter, Castro andseveral other employees joined a union­organizing campaign.112 In January ofthefollowingyear,HoffmanfiredCastroandseveralotheremployeeswhoalsoparticipatedintheunionizingactivities.113Threeyearslater,theNLRBdeterminedHoffmanterminatedCastroandfourothersinviolationoftheNLRA.114During

103 Id.at704(findingnothingintheIRCAoritslegislativehistorysupportingthenotionthatCongressintendedtolimitthescopeoftheFLSA).

104 Id.at705–06.

105 Id.at706.

106 976F.2d1115(7thCir.1992).

107 Id.at1121–22.

108 Id.at1122.

109 Id.Inafootnote,thecourtdistinguishedPatel v. Quality Inn Southbecauseinthatcasetheworkerswereseekingpaymentforworkalreadyperformed,notforworkthatwouldhavebeenperformed. Id. at 1122 n.7. Interestingly, the Patel court used the same logic to distinguish itsholdingfromSure-Tan.See Patelv.QualityInnS.,846F.2d700,705–06(11thCir.1988).

110 535U.S.137(2002).

111 Id.at140.

112 Id.

113 Id.

114 Id.at140–41.

626 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11

asubsequenthearingbeforeanAdministrativeLawJudge(ALJ)todeterminetheamountofbackpayHoffmanowedtheworkers,CastroreportedhewasneitherbornnorlegallypermittedtoenterorworkintheUnitedStates.115CastroalsotestifiedthatheusedfraudulentdocumentstogainemploymentwithHoffman.116Finding a back pay reward in direct conflict with immigration law, the ALJrefusedtoorderpaymenttoCastro.117Fouryears later,theNLRBreversedtheALJ’sdecision,findingthatapplyingtheprotectionsandremediesoftheNLRAwas“themosteffectivewaytoaccommodateandfurtherthepoliciesembodiedin[theIRCA].”118

TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldtheNLRBcorrectlyappliedtheNLRAtoundocumentedworkersbuterredbygrantingbackpaybecauseimmigrationpolicylimitedtheNLRB’sremedialpower.119Themajorityarguedimmigrationpolicy demands strict enforcement of laws enacted to curtail employmentof illegal aliens; failing to do so would invite more violations of immigrationlaw.120Furthermore,themajorityclaimedthatwhileimmigrationpolicylimitedthe remedies available to undocumented workers, Hoffman and other similaremployerswouldnotgounpunished,recitingalistofsanctionsavailable.121

Justice Breyer’s dissent focused on the practical inadequacy of denyingundocumentedworkersthepossibilityofbackpaybecauseitmotivatesemployerstoseekoutundocumentedworkers.122Thedissentalsonotedthatapplyinglaborlawsequallytoundocumentedanddocumentedworkerswouldreduceincentivefor workers entering the United States without going through the properchannels.123 Essentially, the dissent claimed the majority’s attempt to bifurcatethesubstantiveandremedialrightsofundocumentedworkersunderminedbothlaborandimmigrationlaw.124

E. Status-Based Assignment of Rights

The unstable distinction between the rights afforded to documentedand undocumented workers is not just a problem of legal definition but also

115 Id.at141.

116 Id.

117 Id.

118 Id.(quotingHoffmanPlasticCompounds,Inc.andCasimiroArauz,326N.L.R.B.1060,1060(1998)).

119 Id.at144.

120 Id.at151.

121 Id.at152.

122 Id.at155.

123 Id.at156.

124 Id.at153.

2011 COMMENT 627

of defining membership in a transitional and globalized society.125 In general,membershipisdefined—andthusrightsareassigned—througheitheraterritorialorstatus­basedmodel.126Territorialmodelstreatphysical,geographicpresenceasthebasisofmembershipanditsassociatedrights.127Thestatus­centricapproachassignsrightstopersonswithinagiventerritoryaccordingtotheirimmigrationstatus.128Accordingly,inastatus­basedmodel,rightsareassignedtomembersofasocietybasedentirelyongovernmentallysanctionedanddistributed labels.129TheUnitedStatesanditsimmigrationlawstraditionallyfollowaterritorial­basedassignmentofrightsinwhichphysicalpresencewithinthejurisdictionestablishesaminimalsetofrights.130

Someareasofthelawaremovingtowardamorenuancedformofterritorial­based membership.131 In the context of primary education for undocumentedchildren, social factors like community involvement and maintaining familycohesion are usurping immigration status as the determinant factors.132 The

125 SeeMIChaElwalzEr,sphErEsOFJusTICE52(1983)(questioningthedistinctionbetweenresidencyandcitizenship);FrancineJ.Lipman,The Taxation of Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal, and Without Representation,9harV.laTINOl.rEV.1,4–8(2006)(notingthediscrepancyineffectivetaxratesbetweenundocumentedanddocumentedworkersbasedonstatus“despitetheirnetpositivecontributiontopubliccoffers”);Núñez,supra note14,at824–28.

126 See ayElET shaChar, ThE BIrThrIghT lOTTEry: CITIzENshIp aNd glOBal INEqualITy35–36 (2009) (discussing the manner in which citizenship is the basis for participation in thegovernance of a givenpolity);LindaBosniak,Being Here: Ethical Territoriality and the Rights of Immigrants, 8ThEOrETICal INquIrIEs l. 389, 390 (2007) (noting the two primary methods ofassigningrights“derivefromeither...formalstatusunderlawor...territorialpresence”).

127 SeeBosniak,supra note126,at391(notingtheterritorialmethod’sfocuson“thenormativesignificanceofthephysicalfactofpresenceinthenationalspace”);Núñez,supra note14,at825–26(distinguishingbetweenterritorialandstatus­basedmodelsofmembership,notingtheformer’suseof “geographic boundaries” in distributing rights); Rick Su, Local Fragmentation as Immigration Regulation,47hOus.l.rEV.367,391(2010)(“[B]oundarylinesnotonlydeterminewhichpublicresourcesareoursandwhicharetheirs,buthelptodefinewho‘we’and‘they’are.”(quotinggEraldE.Frug,CITyMakINg15(1999))).

128 See walzEr,supra note125,at43(noting“fullmembership”inacountryoftendependsonnationality).

129 SeeBosniak,supra note126,at390–91(discussingthebasicsofthestatus­basedapproach,inparticular the roleof “a state’s immigration admissions andcitizenship allocation systems” increating various sets of rights depending on one’s status); Cunningham­Parmeter, supra note 9,at1362(“[A]person’sbasketof rightsfillsashis immigrationstatus formalizes.”);Núñez, supra note14,at826 (discussing the shortcomingsofa status­basedapproachand itsdependenceongovernmentalcategorization).

130 Núñez,supra note14,at819;seeCunningham­Parmeter,supra note9,at1363(“Regardless of status,thereisaflooronthelevelofprotectionsenjoyedby all personsterritoriallypresentintheUnitedStates.”(emphasisadded)).

131 See infranotes132–34andaccompanyingtext.

132 SeePlylerv.Doe,457U.S.202,223–24(1982)(holdingundocumentedchildrenhavetherightofaccesstopubliceducationbecause,inter alia,theAmericaneducationsystemisinstrumentalincivicandcommunityengagement);JacquelynHagan,BriannaCastro&NestorRodriguez,The

628 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11

issuance of driver’s licenses to undocumented workers raises similar issues.133Laborandemploymentlaw,ontheotherhand,arebecomingincreasinglystatus­based.134 This shift has serious implications for workers—undocumented ornot—aswellasemployers.135

III.aNalysIs

Thissectionbeginsbyaddressingtheproblemsassociatedwithashifttowardastatus­basedassignmentofrights.136ItnotesthedangerofexpandingtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt’sholdinginHoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRBandthen discusses the unclear legal realm in which undocumented workers nowreside.137Further,thissectionevaluatestheparallelsbetweenthehistoryofAfricanAmericans and women with the current uncertainty faced by undocumented

Effects of U.S. Deportation Policies on Immigrant Families and Communities: Cross-Border Perspectives,88N.C.l.rEV.1799,1823(2010)(notingdeportation“undermines thecornerstoneof statedU.S.immigrationpolicy—familyreunification”).

133 See sTEphENh.lEgOMsky&CrIsTINaM.rOdríguEz, IMMIgraTIONaNdrEFugEElawaNdpOlICy1225–28(5thed.2009)(notingthedebateoverwhetherdriver’s licensesaremeanttoenforceimmigrationlawsormaintainpublicsafetybyensuringaminimallevelofexperience);KevinR.Johnson,Driver’s Licenses and Undocumented Immigrants: The Future of Civil Rights Law?,5NEV.l.J.213,218–20(2004)(discussingthelegalandsocietalimplicationsofundocumentedimmigrantsreceivingdriver’slicenses).

134 Núñez,supra note14,at848;see EllenDannin,HoffmanPlastics as Labor Law—Equality At Last for Immigrant Workers?,44U.S.F.L.rEV. 393,412–13 (2009) (discussing theHoffmanCourt’sfocusonimmigrationstatusasthedeterminingfactorastotheavailabilityofremediesandarguingsuchafocuswasirrelevanttotheNLRA);Brackman,supranote32,at725(notingthatprotectionsundertheNLRAvarydependingonone’simmigrationstatus).

135 Núñez, supra note 14, at 863; see Cunningham­Parmeter, supra note 9, at 1363–64(notingthat sinceHoffman,employershaveattemptedtoexpandtheCourt’sholdingto furtherlimittheremediesavailabletoundocumentedworkers);Griffith,supra note101,at160(discussinghowexcludingundocumentedworkersfromunion­relatedactivitieshurtstheir legallyemployedcounterpartsbydiminishingthecollectivebargainingpowerofthegroup).

136 See Núñez, supra note14,at863(discussinghowtheencroachmentofthestatus­basedapproach garners inconsistent and unpredictable legal outcomes and creates a reality in whichimmigration policy is undermined); Pham, supra note 14, at 1119–20, 1153–54 (noting thecreationof “anewparadigm,where immigrationborders aremovingandmultiple, affectingallresidents,bothintheinteriorandattheboundariesoftheUnitedStates”andhowthesebordersaredetrimentaltotherightsofundocumentedworkers);infra notes140–44andaccompanyingtext.

137 See infra notes145–55andaccompanyingtext(discussingtheimplicationsofHoffman);infra notes156–60andaccompanyingtext(addressingthetenuousnatureof lifeasanundocu­mentedworker); see alsoDavidL.Hudson,Jr.,Tales of Hoffman,92­DECA.B.A.J.12,12,14(2006)(notingtheconcernthatcourtshavemisinterpretedHoffmanandexpandeditsholdingtoofar);StephenH.Legomsky,Portraits of the Undocumented Immigrant: A Dialogue,44ga.l.rEV.65,157(2009)(discussinghow“undocumentedimmigrantsareperpetuallyatriskofapprehension,arrest,detention,anddeportation”).

2011 COMMENT 629

workers.138ThissectionconcludeswithaconsiderationofpotentialsolutionstotheproblemscreatedbyHoffman.139

By failing to provide undocumented workers who are victims of illegalemployer actionswithany substantial remedy, theHoffmandecisionembodiesalogicaldisconnectbetweenlawandremedyandremovesmuchofthepunitivebite Congress delegated to administrative agencies in the NLRA and similarstatutes.140 In doing so, the United States Supreme Court implicitly relegatedthe undocumented worker to a sub­class of societal membership, which issimultaneouslyprotectedbyandexcludedfromthelawsoftheUnitedStates.141Undocumentedworkers areprotectedby theNLRA,butHoffman limits theirrecourse.142Underthecurrentlegalregime,immigrationstatus,morethananyothercategorizationortrait,determinestherightsoftheundocumentedworker.

Hoffmananditsprogenyindicateashifttowardthestatus­centricapproach,whichlimitstherightsofworkersbasedontheirimmigrationstatus.143Limitingtherightsofundocumentedworkersbasedontheirstatustoleratesexploitationbyunscrupulousemployers,allowsdiscriminationbasedonperceivedimmigrationstatus,andnegativelyaffectstheentireworkforce.144Further,theshifttowardastatus­centricapproachcreatesconfusionandinconsistenciesinotherareasoflaw.

138 See infra notes161–73andaccompanyingtext.

139 See infra notes179–85andaccompanyingtext.

140 HoffmanPlasticCompounds, Inc.v.NLRB,535U.S.137,156–57(2002)(Breyer, J.,dissenting)(notingthatwithholdingremediesfromundocumentedworkers“leave[s]helplesstheverypersonswhomostneedprotectionfromexploitativeemployerpractices”);see Walsh,supra note8,at333–39(explainingtheHoffmanCourt’serrorinignoringthecongressionalintentbehindtheIRCAandhowthaterrornegativelyaffectstheNLRB’sdiscretionarypowers).

141 See, e.g., Núñez, supra note 14, at 853–54 (discussing the manner in which Hoffmanleaves undocumented workers in a “no­man’s­land” by deeming them protected by the NLRA,yetprecludingtheavailabilityofaremedy);Walsh,supra note8,at339(notingalossoflaborlawprotectionsaffects“anentireclassofpeople”).

142 Hoffman,535U.S.at148–49.

143 SeeNúñez,supranote14,at849–50;infranote152andaccompanyingtext.

144 SeeSure­Tan,Inc.v.NLRB,467U.S.883,893(1984)(“ApplicationoftheNLRAhelpstoassurethatthewagesandemploymentconditionsoflawful residentsarenotadverselyaffectedbythecompetitionofillegalalienemployeeswhoarenotsubjecttothestandardtermsofemployment.”(emphasisadded));RubenJ.Garcia,Ghost Workers in an Interconnected World: Going Beyond the Dichotomies of Domestic Immigration and Labor Laws,36u.MICh.J.l.rEFOrM737,739(2003)(discussinghowwithholding remedies fromundocumentedworkers “dichotomize[s] twobodiesof law,ultimately trouncingworkerprotections in thenameof immigration control”);Griffith,supra note101,at160;Lewinter,supra note51,at537;Núñez,supra note14,at863(notinghowmaintainingseparatestandardsfordocumentedandundocumentedworkers“erode[s]workplacestandardsforallemployees”);Walsh,supra note8,at339–40.

630 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11

Undocumented workers live a precarious life in the United States.145Thepromiseofbetter jobswithhigherwagesattractsworkers fromallpartsof theworld.146Manyoftheseworkersareunabletoobtainproperdocumentation,yetentertheUnitedStatesnonetheless.147Theirmethodofentryiscertainlyillegal,yetmanyconsider theirveryexistence—not just theirphysicalpresence in theUnitedStates—illicit148andcontendthatundocumentedworkersstealjobsfromthelegalAmericanworkforce.149YettheseverysameworkersoftenfillvaluableandneededrolesinAmericansociety.150Ifthetrendtowardastrictlystatus­based

145 See Cunningham­Parmeter, supranote9,at1362(discussingtheconditionsthatattractundocumentedworkerstotheUnitedStatesaswellasthegrowinghostilitytowardtheirpresence);Lewinter,supra note51,at509(notingwhilemanyundocumentedworkersreceivelowwagesandsufferpoorworkingconditions,theyareoftenafraidtoreportsuchabusesforfearofretaliationordeportation).

146 Hoffman, 535 U.S. at 155 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (noting the “attractive force ofemployment,whichlikea‘magnet’pullsillegalimmigrantstowardtheUnitedStates”);seePhiMaiNguyen,Comment, Closing the Back Door on Illegal Immigration: Over Two Decades of Ineffective Provisions While Solutions Are Just a Few Words Away,13Chap.l.rEV.615,623–24(2010)(notingthemost influentialfactorinundocumentedimmigrationis lucrative jobopportunities); see alsoJEFFrEys.passEl&d’VEraCOhN,apOrTraIT OFuNauThOrIzEd IMMIgraNTs IN ThEuNITEdsTaTEs21(2009)(findingthatwhilethemajorityofundocumentedimmigrantscomefromMexicoandotherLatinAmericancountries(81%),significantportionsoftheundocumentedpopulationcomefromAsia(11%),theMiddleEast(under2%),andEurope(over4%)).

147 See Lipman,supra note125,at11–13(discussinghowthedemandforimmigrantworkersexceedstheavailabilityofgreencardsorotherformsofobtaininglegalimmigrationstatus,therebyresultinginlargenumbersofundocumentedworkers);Nguyen,supra note146,at623–24(notingtheeconomicincentivesforenteringtheUnitedStatesillegallyoftenoutweightherisksoflifeasanundocumentedworkerinthemindsofpotentialimmigrants).

148 See 8U.S.C.§1325 (2006) (subjecting an alien that “enters or attempts to enter” theUnitedStates illegally to afine, imprisonment,orboth);Legomsky, supra note137, at144–45(discussingthewaysinwhichimmigrationviolationsarevieweddifferentlyfromotherviolationsoflaw).Despiteillegalentrybeingamisdemeanorunder8U.S.C.§1325(a),undocumentedworkersare often considered egregious lawbreakers, and by extension their presence is deemed illegal.Legomsky,supranote137,at144–45; see alsoEdMuNdCahN,Law in the Consumer Perspective,in CONFrONTINgINJusTICE:ThEEdMONdCahNrEadEr15,26(LenoreL.Cahned.,1966)(notingthemannerinwhichthelawreducescomplexmatterstooverlysimplistictruthsusingtheexampleofhowajuveniledelinquentislabeledalawbreaker,ignoring“whatelsehemaybe”);Cunningham­Parmeter,supranote9,at1401(notinghowundocumentedworkersareviewedasviolatorsthatthreaten“democracyandmembershipforthoselawfullypresent”).

149 See Paul Weiler, Enhancing Worker Lives Through Fairer Labor and Worklife Law in Comparative Perspective, 25 COMp. laB. l. & pOl’y J. 143, 147–48 (2003) (claiming illegalimmigrantscausea“majorcompetitiveproblem”forthelegalworkforce);Brackman,supra note32,at717(notingthatundocumentedworkers“flood”jobmarkets,leavingfewerandfewerjobsforlegalresidents);Nguyen,supra note146,at619(observingthatmanyintheUnitedStatesconsiderundocumentedimmigrantsathreattolegaljob­seekersandaburdenonthesystem).

150 passEl&COhN,supra note146,ativ.Undocumentedworkerscomprisesubstantialportionsofthefarming,construction,andfoodserviceindustries.Id.; see also OrrinBaird,Undocumented Workers and the NLRA: HoffmanPlasticCompounds and Beyond,19laB.law.153,160(notingthatforty­eightpercentofagriculturalworkersareundocumented);Cunningham­Parmeter,supra

2011 COMMENT 631

conceptionofmembershipcontinues,undocumentedworkerswillfindthemselvesevenfurtherremovedfromtheprotectionsofthelawsoftheUnitedStates.151

SubsequentcaseshaveattemptedtoextendtheHoffmanmajority’sreasoningto broader issues such as the issuance of driver’s licenses to undocumentedimmigrants,inquiriesintoimmigrationstatusduringdiscoveryindiscriminationsuits, workers’ compensation, and changing definitions of “employee.”152This trend further destabilizes the rights of undocumentedworkers through apresumptionthattheirphysicalpresenceintheUnitedStateschallengesnotionsof membership.153They are physically present, yet legally invisible; they have

note9, at1362 (explaininghowundocumentedworkers are “wantedyetdisdained,neededyetderided”);Nguyen, supra note146,at615(arguingthehistoricaldisdain for immigrants in theUnitedStateshasbeentranslatedintopoliciesfocusedonstiflingillegalimmigration).

151 LenniBenson,The Invisible Worker,27N.C.J.INT’ll.&COM.rEg.483,484(2001).Benson,whilediscussingthepotentialpitfallsoffocusingentirelyontheundocumentedworker’simmigrationstatus,notes:

Legaldefinitionsnotonlydefinewhoisalegalimmigrantbutalso,bynecessity,createtheconverse—the“illegal”orundocumentedworkers....[They]gofarbeyondbeingmerelabels,and instead become the building blocks of legal status,creatingintentionalandunintentionalinteractionswithotherlawssuchascriminallaw,familylaw,taxlaw,andlaborandemploymentlaw.Theselabels...giverisetoa class of invisible people:Peoplewhodonotfitwithinthelegalsystem...existinginanundergroundworld—aworldofinvisibleworkers.

Id.(emphasisadded);seeCunningham­Parmeter,supra note9,at1414(notingtheSupremeCourt’sportrayalofremedialreliefforundocumentedworkersastherewardingofillegalbehaviorthreatenstofurtherthedeclineinundocumentedworkers’rights);Pham,supra note14,at1121(arguingthatbyrequiringproofofimmigrationstatusatvariousjunctureswithintheUnitedStates’borders,the trendtowardstatus­basedmembership threatens tobanishundocumentedworkers fromtheperipheryofsocietytotheexterior).

152 Rivera v.Nibco, Inc.,384F.3d822,823 (9thCir.2004) (Bea, J.,dissenting) (arguingthat allowing theplaintiff tobar inquiries intoher immigration statusduringpretrialdiscoverywas contrary to federal immigration law);Sanchezv. Iowa,692N.W.2d812,821 (Iowa2005)(confirmingthelegalityofIowa’s“practiceofdenyingdriver’slicensestoillegalaliens”);Correav.WaymouthFarms,Inc.,664N.W.2d324,331–32(Minn.2003)(Gilbert,J.,dissenting)(arguingthatprovidingdisabilitybenefitstoaninjuredundocumentedworkerwould“rewardhimforstayingintheUnitedStatesillegallyandencouragehimtoviolateIRCAbyfindingfurtheremployment”);Crespov.EvergoCorp.,841A.2d471,476–77(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2004)(holdingaclaimfordiscriminatory terminationbroughtby anundocumentedworker couldnot survivebecauseher immigration status served as a statutorybar to employment,whichprecluded anydamagespursuanttohertermination);see Hudson,supra note137,at12,14;Johnson,supranote133,at219–20(notingthatcourtsarehesitanttoinvalidatelawsprecludingundocumentedimmigrantsfromobtainingdriver’slicenses).

153 See Núñez,supra note14,at817;Pham,supra note14,at1152(notingimmigrationstatusnowformstheprimarydivisionbetweenthepeoplethat“belonginournationalcommunity”andthosethatshouldremainoutsidebecausetheyhavenotbeengrantedthecommunity’spermissiontostay);see also StephenH.Legomsky,Immigration, Equality and Diversity,31COluM.J.TraNsNaT’ll.319,335(discussingthewaysinwhichimmigrationissueschallengenotionsofcommunityandcommunalvalues).

632 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11

someminimalrights,butnomeansofenforcingthoserights.154Becauseastatus­basedapproachcreatesaclassofundocumentedworkerssimultaneouslyincludedinAmericansocietybutexcludedfromitslegalsystem,Hoffmananditsprogenythreatentopushthoseworkersfurtherintotheshadows.155

This dualistic existence leaves undocumented workers in an undefinedrealm.156Theyhavesomerights,butnotothers;thelawisunclear.157Thisisknownaspartialinclusion.158Anundocumentedworkerenjoyssomebasicrightswithoutobtaininganylevelofofficialimmigrationstatus.159Yetthislackofimmigrationstatuspreventsworkersfromobtainingandexercisingotherrights.160

The partial inclusion of African Americans and women in the UnitedStates legal system—often seen as proof that the system merely serves tomaintain the status quo of political power—demonstrates the inverse of theundocumented worker’s predicament.161 These groups, unlike undocumentedworkers,wereprotectedby the immigration regimebecause theywere citizensbutwerenonethelessdeniedcertaincivilrights.162Giventheirstatusascitizens,however,theprogressofwomenandAfricanAmericanshadalegalfoundationforadvancingchangeunavailable toundocumentedworkers. Inparticular, thecivilrightsmovementilluminatesthemannerinwhichthelegalsystemaddressesgroupsclaimingsomeformofdiscrimination.163Generally,suchissuesareviewedinoneoftwoways:fromtheperpetratorperspectiveorthevictimperspective.164

154 SeeBenson,supra note151,at484;Phamsupra note14,at1163(discussinghowusingimmigrationstatusasakeytodefiningmembershipaffectsbothdocumentedandundocumentedworkersalike).

155 See Hudson, supra note 137, at 12, 14; Lipman, supra note 125, at 1–7 (noting thatundocumentedimmigrantsarerequiredtopaytaxesyetarebarredfromgovernmentbenefits).

156 See Núñez,supra note14, at853.

157 SeeNhanT.Vu&JeffSchwartz,Workplace Rights and Illegal Immigration: How Implied Repeal Analysis Cuts Through the Haze of Hoffman Plastic, its Predecessors and its Progeny, 29BErkElEyJ.EMp.&laB.l.1,40(2008).

158 Cunningham­Parmeter,supranote9,at1403.

159 See Cunningham­Parmeter,supra note9,at1363;Núñez,supra note14,at819.

160 SeeHoffmanPlasticCompounds,Inc.v.NLRB,535U.S.137(2002).

161 SeeMariMatsuda,Looking to the Bottom: Critical Legal Studies and Reparations,22harV.C.r.C.l. rEV. 323, 327–28 (1987) (“[L]egal ideals are manipulable and [the] law serves tolegitimateexistingmaldistributionsofwealthandpower...[which]ringstrueforanyonewhohasexperiencedlifeinnon­whiteAmerica.”).

162 Cunningham­Parmeter,supranote9,at1402–03.

163 See KevinR.Johnson,Race Matters: Immigration Law and Policy Scholarship, Law in the Ivory Tower, and the Legal Indifference of the Race Critique,2000U.Ill.l.rEV.525,525–26(2000)(noting the traces of racial discrimination present in immigration law and policy); Karla MariMcKanders,Sustaining Tiered Personhood: Jim Crow and Anti-Immigrant Laws,26harV.J.raCIal&EThNICJusT.163passim(2010)(analogizingthediscriminatoryeffectsJimCrowlawshadonAfrican­Americanstocontemporaryanti­immigrationlaws’effectsonLatinos).

164 See generally AlanFreeman,Antidiscrimination Law: A Critical Review,inThEpOlITICsOFlaw121(DavidKairysed.,1990)[hereinafterFreemanI](usingthevictim/perpetratorframework

2011 COMMENT 633

Theperpetratorperspective,adominantforceinAmericanjurisprudence,isemployedwhenlawsarecraftedtodetectandpunishindividualviolators.165Theperpetratorperspectiveassumes that societyasawhole is functioningproperlyandthat“allweneeddoisidentifyandcatchvillains.”166Inthecontextofcivilrights thismeant that bypassing legislation, which focusedon racist violatorsofcivilrights laws,therestofsocietynolongerboreanyresponsibilityforthedeeply ingrainedandresidualproblemsofracism.167Yeta legalregimefocusedsolelyonapprehendingandpunishingaparticularperpetratoroftenoverlookstheactualproblem.168

toanalyzeSupremeCourtantidiscriminationdoctrinefromthe1950sthroughthe1980s);AlanFreeman, Legitimizing Racial Discrimination Through Antidiscrimination Law: A Critical Review of Supreme Court Doctrine, 62 MINN. l. rEV. 1049 (1977) [hereinafter Freeman II]. EdmundCahn discusses an analogous dichotomy. See CahN, supra note 148, at 15–31 (explaining the“imperialist”and“consumer”perspectives).Cahn’s“imperialist”perspectiveassumesthepointofviewofgovernmentofficialsandseekstoinstillefficiencyandorder.Id.at17,24.The“consumer”perspective,ontheotherhand,analyzesalaworprincipleaccordingtotheperspectiveofitstargetedaudienceandhowitaffectsthecommunity.Id.at25.

165 SeeGabrielArkles,PoojaGehi&ElanaRedfield,The Role of Lawyers in Trans Liberation: Building a Transformative Movement for Social Change,8sEaTTlEJ.FOrsOC.JusT.579,597(2010)(acknowledging the law’s “deep investment” in the perpetrator perspective and how it weakensthelaw’sabilitytoeffectivelyaddressdiscrimination);FreemanI,supranote164,at125(notingthedominantroleoftheperpetratorperspective);NamoiMurkakawa&KatherineBeckett,The Penology of Racial Innocence: The Erasure of Racism in the Study and Practice of Punishment,44law&sOC’yrEV.695,700–01(2010)(describingtheperpetratorperspective);LauraBethNielsen&RobertL.Nelson,Rights Realized? An Empirical Analysis of Employment Discrimination Litigation as a Claiming System,2005wIs.l.rEV.663,676(2005)(notingthemannerinwhichemploymentdiscriminationlawischaracterizedbytheperpetratorperspective).

166 FreemanI,supra note164,at125;seeJerryKang,Implicit Bias and the Pushback from the Left,54sT.lOuIsu.l.J.1139,1146–47(2010)(notingtheperpetratorperspective’serroneousfocuson“themisfiringneuronsinafewpathologicalindividuals”);IanF.HaneyLópez,Post-Racial Racism: Racial Stratification and Mass Incarceration in the Age of Obama,98Cal.l.rEV.1023,1069 (2010) (noting “when conceptualized as bad acts by bad persons,” conceptions of racismanddiscriminationoverlook“disparatesocialoutcomes”);Nielson&Nelson, supranote165,at676(“[L]awhasthemorelimitedpurposeofremedyingspecificintentionalwrongs,ratherthanredressingsystemicaspectsofdiscriminationandinequality....”).

167 See FreemanII, supranote164,at1073–74(discussingtheassumptionthatoutlawingapracticeindicatesthatpracticewasadeviationfromthenorm,whichinturnimpliesthestatusquoprecludesthepractice).Accordingly,bysimplypassinganti­discriminationlaws,societybelievesitisreinforcinganalreadyexistingnorm.See id.;see alsoCharlesR.LawrenceIII,The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism,39sTaN.l.rEV.317,325(1987)(describingtheperpetratorperspectivemindsetthatifthelawnolongerdiscriminates,societyisnotresponsibleforagroup’s“subordinateposition”);ThomasRoss,Innocence and Affirmative Action,43VaNd.l.rEV.297,311–12(1990)(“[We]canclaimthemantleofinnocenceonly by denying the charge of racism.Weaswhitepersonsandnonracistsareinnocent;wehavedonenoharmtothosepeopleanddonotdeservetosufferforthesinsoftheother,notinnocentwhitepeoplewhowereracists.”(emphasisadded)).

168 See CahN, supra note 148, at 26 (noting how the law would benefit greatly from a“sensibilitytohumanimpacts”);Kang,supranote166,at1147(arguingtheperpetratorperspectiveisoverlynarrowandthatsocietyshouldlookbeyond“individualpathologies”);López,supra note

634 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11

The victim perspective is concerned with the social conditions associatedwithaprobleminsteadof the individualviolatorsofaparticular law.169Whensocialconditionsplaguinganadverselyaffectedgroupofpeoplepersistdespitepassageof anew lawdesigned toprevent suchconditions, that law isdeemedineffective.170Insteadoffocusingonviolations,thevictimperspectiveproposesadoptinglawsandpoliciesthateffectuatechangeinsocialconditions.171Thus,thevictimperspectivelookstoactualresultsintheday­to­daylivesofanadverselyaffectedgroup,whiletheperpetratorperspectivepresupposesthattheworkhasbeendone:assoonasthelegislationwassignedintolaw,societychanged.172

The Hoffman decision reinforces the perpetrator perspective. UnderHoffman,theundocumentedworker’sentryandpresencerendershimtheoriginalperpetrator.173Assuch,theillegalimmigrant,havingneverattainedlegalstatus,isalwaysandalreadyviolatingtheruleoflaw.Thisreductiveapproachportraysanoverlynarrow­sighteddepictionof theundocumentedworkerbyfixinghisidentitytoanillegalpresence,bymakinghimaperpetualperpetrator.

166,at1069(notingtheperpetratorperspective“isneithernaturalnorobvious...[and]ultimatelysupplanted a developing structural conception of racial hierarchy”); Rebecca Davis, Comment,Opportunistic Hate Crimes Targeting Symbolic Property: When Free Speech Is Not Free,10J.gENdErraCE&JusT.93,104(2006)(“Whensocietyviewsthehateactas‘rational’orasa‘logical’extensionofacrimeinprocess,ratherthanextremeordeviant,societyitself ‘contributestoandreinforcesthesocialenvironmentthatmakesthepracticesseemusefulorsensibletoperpetrators.’”(quotingLu­inWang,“Suitable Targets”? Parallels and Connections Between “Hate” Crimes and “Driving While Black”,6MICh.J.raCE&l.209,235(2001))).

169 SeeArklesetal.,supra note165,at597(describinghowthevictimperspectiveviewstheproblemas“thoseconditionsofactualsocialexistenceasamemberofanunderclass”);DevonW.Carbado, (E)racing the Fourth Amendment, 100MICh.l.rEV. 946,970 (2002) (noting, in thecontextofracialdiscriminationinpolicesearches,thatthevictimperspectiveisnotconcernedwithindividual“badcop[s],”butratherwithhowraceshapesthesocietalinteractionsbetween“policeofficersandnonwhitepersons”);FreemanII,supra note164,at1053(“[T]heproblemwillnotbesolveduntiltheconditionsassociatedwithithavebeeneliminated.”).

170 SeeFreeman I, supranote164, at125;Lawrence, supra note167, at324 (arguing thatanti­discriminationlawsfocusedsolelyonculpablyracistindividualslead“ustothinkaboutracisminawaythatadvancesthediseaseratherthancombatingit”).

171 See FreemanII,supra note164,at1053(notingactionstoremedyracialdiscriminationshould be centered around “affirmative efforts to change the condition”). Similarly, Cahn’s“consumerperspective”requiresaconsiderationoftheneedsofthoseaffectedbythelaw.See CahN,supranote148,at27.

172 See FreemanI,supra note164,at1053n.16(discussingthedifferencesbetweenthetwoperspectives);CecilJ.Hunt,II,Color of Perspective: Affirmative Action and the Constitutional Rhetoric of White Innocence,11MICh. J.raCE&l.477,509–10 (2006) (noting the victimperspective“focusesontheinjuryorlosssufferedbythevictims,”whiletheperpetratorperspective“reinforcesthenotionthatracismisprimarilyafunctionofindividualactors”).

173 See HoffmanPlasticCompounds,Inc.v.NLRB,535U.S.137,150–51(2002)(notingtheplaintiff ’spresencewasinitselfaviolationofthelaw);Cunningham­Parmeter,supranote9,at1414(discussinghowfocusingonimmigrationstatusattheexpenseofotherstatusesisharmful).

2011 COMMENT 635

Iftheundocumentedworkerisdepictedastheperpetrator—ifbyhismerepresencehe is the signifierofproblems resulting from illegal immigrationanddeemedtobeillegal—thensocietynolongerbearstheresponsibilityofaddressingthe problems underlying illegal immigration.174 If membership derives solelyfrom one’s immigration status, then the problems of illegal immigration willnot simplyremainunfixed; theywillbecomeexacerbated.175Thestatus­centricapproach frames the issueof theundocumentedworker’s rights in suchawaythat punishing and excluding those undocumented workers would solve themuchlargerproblemsofillegalimmigration.176Yetbydissuadingworkersfromdemanding(oratleastdenyingtheirabilitytoexercise)employmentrights,thisapproachencouragesemployerstocontinuehiringundocumentedworkers.177Ifanemployercanviolatelaborandemploymentlawsknowinganundocumentedworkerhas fewermeansof legal retribution, shewouldbemore likely tohireanillegalworkerthanhislegalcounterpart.178Inthisway,theentireworkforceisaffected.

Toaddresstheproblematitsroot,energymustfirstbedevotedtostabilizingthecurrentsystem.Giventheuncertaintyofastatus­centricapproachtoassigningrightstoundocumentedworkers,bestowingtherightsaffordedtoalldocumentedworkersonthosewithoutproperdocumentationwouldstrengthenthesystem.179

174 See Dannin,supra note134,at400–03(notingthatinHoffman,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt shifted blame from the NLRA­violating company to the undocumented worker victim);FreemanI, supra note164,at1055(discussinghowtheperpetratorperspectiveallowsothers insocietyto“notfeelanypersonalresponsibilityfortheconditionsassociatedwithdiscrimination”).

175 See Freeman I, supra note 164, at 1055 (noting that society feels a strong resentmentfor bearing the costs of eradicating discriminatory conditions, particularly when those costs aretraditionallyimposedonguiltyparties);Haganetal.,supranote132,at1822–23(notingstricterimmigrationenforcementadverselyaffectsbusiness,families,andcommunities).

176 Hoffman,535U.S.at150(“Indeed,awardingbackpayinacaselikethisnotonlytrivializesimmigrationlaws,italsocondonesandencouragesfutureviolations.”).

177 See Griffith,supra note101,at140–41(notingthenegativeeffectsofthecurrentimmigrationschemeasbeing“catastrophicforthelaborrightsofimmigrantandU.S.workers”(emphasisadded)(quoting Rebecca Smith & Catherince Ruckelhaus, Solutions, Not Scapegoats: Abating Sweatshop Conditions for All Low-Wage Workers as a Centerpiece of Immigration Reform,10N.y.u.J.lEg.&puB.pOl’y555,557(2007)));Lewinter,supra note51,at537(arguingthatHoffmanallowsemployerstoviolatelaborlawsandencouragesexploitationofundocumentedworkers).

178 See Lewinter,supranote51,at537;RachelBloomekatz,Comment,Rethinking Immigration Status Discrimination and Exploitation in the Low-Wage Workplace,54U.C.L.A.L.Rev.1963,1964(2007)(“[M]anyemployersactuallyprefertohireimmigrantsratherthanU.S.workers,believingthat the former are more easily exploitable.”). Employer preference for undocumented workershasgivenrisetoanewbreedofdiscriminationclaimsbroughtbyU.S.workersagainstemployersthoughttohireaccordingtoimmigrationstatus.See Bloomekatz,supra,at1985.

179 See Núñez, supra note 14, at 853–54 (discussing how immigration status has “seeped”intomanyareasofthelaw,creatingcomplex“newdimension[s]”oflitigation);Walsh,supranote8,at339(discussinghowworkershavehistoricallydependedonthelaborandemploymentlawsto maintain consistent working conditions); Brackman, supra note 32, at 728 (noting that allemployeesareaffectedwhenanalienisprohibitedfromexertingcertainrights).

636 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11

Giving undocumented workers equal rights in the employment sector woulddeterdiscriminatory laborpractices and improveconditions for allworkersbyremovingincentivesforemployerstohireundocumentedworkersorutilizeillegalpractices.180Withthatinmind,itmayalsodiscouragethoseconsideringillegalentryfromdoingso.181

Solutionstoproblemscreatedbyandrelatedtowithholdingremedialrightsfromundocumentedworkersmaycomeinseveralforms.CourtscouldlimittheholdingofHoffman toaverynarrowsetoffactualcircumstances.Thisapproach,however, would nonetheless allow employers to hire and discriminate againstundocumentedworkers.182Giventhestatutoryoriginsoftheproblem,alegislativesolutionwouldprovideamorethoroughtreatment.

ThelegislatureshouldamendIRCAtoincludelanguageexpresslypreventingimmigration status from trumping rights otherwise afforded under labor andemployment statutes. The legislative history behind IRCA supports such aclarificationofthestatute’sscopeandlimitations.183Indoingso,CongresscoulddispeltheubiquitousconfusionregardingtheinteractionbetweentheIRCAandtheNLRA,FLSA,andotherstatutes.184Further,expresslanguagewillbolsterthepoliciessupportingthevariousstatutesbysimultaneouslydiscouragingbehaviorthosestatutesaimtocurb.185

180 See Walsh,supra note8,at338–39(assertingthatexcludingundocumentedworkersfromtheprotectionsof labor and employment lawswould “open thefloodgate for serious abuses byemployers alongwith a depressionofwages”);Brackman, supra note 32, at 729–30 (discussingtheproblemsassociatedwithdenyingundocumentedworkersremediesundertheNLRA);IreneZopothHudson&SusanSchenck,Note,America: Land of Opportunity or Exploitation,19hOFsTralaB.&EMp.l.J.351,376(notinglaborandemploymentlaw’sdualgoalsofdeterringviolationsandcompensatingvictims).

181 See Hoffman,535U.S.at155–56(Breyer,J.,dissenting)(notingthatwithholdingbackpay“couldnotsignificantlyincreasethestrengthof[the]magneticforce”thatattractsundocumentedworkers to the United States); Harris, supra note 97, at 928–29 (noting that enforcing bothimmigrationand laborlawswillweakenemployerincentivestohireundocumentedworkers).

182 See Lewinter,supra note51,at537(notingtheHoffmandecision“rewardsemployerswhohireworkersthattheysuspecthavefalsifieddocumentsbyallowingtheseemployerstofloutNLRAprotectionswithoutsanction”).

183 H.R.rEp.NO.99-682(II),at5758(1986),reprinted in 1986U.S.C.C.A.N.5757,5758(“[T]hecommitteedoesnotintendthatany provisionofthisActwouldlimitthepowers...toremedyunfairpracticescommittedagainstundocumentedemployees....”(emphasisadded));see Patelv.QualityInnS.,846F.2d700,704(11thCir.1988)(notingthatinsection111(d)oftheIRCA,“CongressspecificallyauthorizedtheappropriationofadditionalfundsforincreasedFLSAenforcementonbehalfofundocumentedworkers”).

184 SeeNguyen,supra note146,at639(notingtheconfusioninlowercourtssincetheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt’sdecisioninHoffman).

185 See Hoffman, 535 U.S. at 153 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (“[I]t reasonably helps to deterunlawfulactivitythatboth laborlawsandimmigrationlawsseektoprevent.”).

2011 COMMENT 637

IV.CONClusION

In Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, the United States SupremeCourt could have clarified an extremely confused area of the law. Instead, itblurredtherelationshipbetweenimmigration,labor,andemploymentlawevenfurther.186TheNLRAandotherstatuteshavespecificdefinitionsof“employee,”allofwhichareextremelybroad.187ImmigrationlawremainedsilentontheissueofundocumentedworkersuntilCongresspassedtheIRCA.188InHoffman, theCourt focused on the illegal presence, employment, and continued stay of anundocumented worker, citing national immigration policy as the impetus forthis focus.189TheCourt’sdecisionpushedundocumentedworkers further intothenetherworldof illegal immigrationbydepriving themof legallyprescribedremedies.190Inreality—andcontrarytothemajority’scontention—theholdinginHoffmandidnotbolsterworkers’rightsandimmigrationpolicy;itunderminedthembyfocusingsolelyonimmigrationstatus.191

Concern over the effects of illegal immigration on American job marketsremainsahot­buttonpoliticalissueaswellasasourceofmuchlegalcontention.192Aseffortstocombataperceivedtorrentofillegalimmigrantsaretakenupbythestates,193thefederalgovernmentremainsundecidedonhowtoproceed.Unlesscorrected,thedisconnectbetweenlabor,employment,andimmigrationlawwillonly lead to greater uncertainty. Issues ranging from employment verificationsystemsandcollectivebargainingtodriver’s licensesandtherighttoeducationwillremainunsettled.Inordertoharmonizethesestatutoryframeworks,CongressshouldacttoprovideundocumentedworkerswiththefullprotectionsoflaborandemploymentlawsandexpresslyforbidtheIRCAfromallowingimmigrationstatustoprecludetheremediesCongresssoughttoprovide.194

186 See Garcia, supra note 144, at 744 (noting the Hoffman Court “highlighted theineffectivenessof immigration law, and labor law’s inability toprotect allworkers”); supra notes140–60andaccompanyingtext.

187 See supranotes29–95andaccompanyingtext(discussingthesestatutoryframeworks).

188 See supra notes102–10andaccompanyingtext(discussingrelevantimmigrationstatutesandcaselaw).

189 See supra notes111–24andaccompanyingtext(discussingHoffman).

190 See supra notes145–51andaccompanyingtext.

191 See supra notes143–85andaccompanyingtext(discussingthedangersposedbyHoffmantoimmigration,employment,andlaborlaws).

192 See, e.g., Tamar Jacoby, Editorial, Immigration Reform: A State-by-State Approach Might Break the D.C. Logjam,laTIMEs.COM(Mar.25,2011),http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/25/opinion/la­oe­jacoby­utah­20110325;Your World with Neil Cavuto: Interview with Wyoming Senator John Barrasso (Fox News Network television broadcast Aug. 2, 2010), available at http://www.youtube.com/v/RO5OdtgROiA?f=videos&app=youtube_gdata (discussing illegal immigration,SenatorBarrassostated,“TheAmericanpeopledon’twantthesefolks,whoarecriminals,whohavecometothiscountryillegally....”).

193 See supranotes11–13andaccompanyingtext.

194 See supranotes179–85andaccompanyingtext.

638 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11