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,wasfiredafterfilingseveralcomÂplaintsthathedidnotreceivethousandsofdollarsinunpaidwages.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,Hernandezâssituation appears easily resolvable, but his status as an undocumented workermakesanotherwiseroutineforayintostatelaborandemploymentlawamatterof national immigration policy. Given estimates that undocumented workerscurrentlycomprisefivepercentoftheAmericanworkforce,Hernandezâssituationishardlyunique.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 â09,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 workersâon the basis of their immigration statusâwithouttheremediesavailabletotheirauthorizedcounterparts.9UnderHoffmananditsprogeny, undocumented workers remain protected by labor and employmentlawsbutlacktheabilitytopursuethelegalremediesnormallyavailabletolegalworkers,thusplacingtheminanillÂdefinedlegalspace.10
As recent events in Arizona, Oklahoma, Utah, and other states indicate,enforcingimmigrationlawshasbecomeaheatedissueatthestatelevelaswell.11
6 See id. (notingboththehighpercentageofundocumentedimmigrantsintheworkforceandthedebateovertheObamaAdministrationâsworkplaceÂorientedimmigrationpolicies).
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 KeithCunninghamÂParmeter,Redefining the Rights of Undocumented Workers,58aM.u.l.rEV.1361,1401(2009)(â[Hoffman]constructsaworldinwhichcitizensareallowedtoseekredressforincidentsofdiscrimination,relegatingunauthorizedworkerstoalawlessremedialrealmtomatchtheirlawlessexistenceinthecommunity.â).
10 SeeHoffman,535U.S.at153â54(Breyer,J.,dissenting)(notingthemannerinwhichdenyingtheNationalLaborRelationsBoardremedialpowerwillsnubundocumentedworkers);Escobarv.SpartanSec.Serv.,281F.Supp.2d895,897(S.D.Tex.2003)(â[Hoffman]didnotspecificallyforecloseallremediesforundocumentedworkersunderthe[NLRA]orothercomparablefederallaborstatutes....â);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)(affirmingthedistrictcourtâsdeterminationthatanArizonastatute,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.3d604,618â19(Ct.App.2007)(holdingâtheprevailingwagelawandthepostÂHoffmanstatutesarenotpreemptedbytheIRCA,âthereforeallowingplaintiffstobringsuchclaimsdespitetheirundocumentedstatus);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/51389489Â76/billÂimmigrationÂniederhauserÂsenate.html.csp(discussingabillthatcircumventsthefederalimmigrationprocessandallowsimmigrantstoliveandworkinUtahprovidedtheypassabackgroundcheckandhealthscreening,amongotherthings).
616 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11
Groups like the Minuteman Projectâwhose goals consist of raising publicawarenessofwhattheylabelanongoingâillegalalieninvasionâandadvocatingforenforcementofimmigrationlawsâincreasethevisibilityofthedebate,aswellasexacerbatetherancorousdivideitcreates.12ApollconductedinMayof2010indicatedfiftyÂthreepercentofrespondentsfeltâillegalimmigrantsmakinglowwagesmightmakeU.S.employerslesswillingtopayAmericanworkersadecentwage.â13Thereiscontinuingpressuretoaddresstheseissuesatboththestateandnationallevels.
Currently,theminimalrightsaffordedundocumentedworkersareindangeroferosion.14CaselawindicatestheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthascreatedahierarchyofnationalpoliciesplacingimmigrationstatusoverconsiderationsofcivillibertiesandhumanrights.15TheprivilegingofimmigrationlawandpolicyabovethepoliciesoflaborandemploymentlawparallelsashiftintheUnitedStatesfromaterritorialconceptionofmembershiptoastatusÂcentricapproach.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 thegroupâscoÂfounders); 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/AmericansÂValueÂAspectsÂImmigrationÂReform.aspx.
14 SeeFloresv.Albertsons, Inc.,2002WL1163263,at*5(C.D.Cal.2002);D.CarolinaNĂșñez, 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. 1115,1153â54 (2009) (discussing the âsteady chipping awayâ 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)(notingtheuncertaintyofundocumentedworkersârightsinthewakeofHoffman).
15 See Sarah H. Cleveland, Legal Status and Rights of Undocumented Workers: Advisory Opinion, 99aM. J. INTâll.460,461 (â[O]nce an employment relationship is establishedwithanundocumentedworker,âthemigrantacquiresrightsasaworker,whichmustberecognizedandguaranteed, irrespectiveofhis regularor irregular status in theStateof employment.ââ (quotingJuridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OCÂ18/03,InterÂAm. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) No. 18, ¶ 134 (Sept. 17, 2003))); NĂșñez supra note 14, at 821(commentatingimmigrationstatusâoftendisplacesterritorialpresenceastheultimatedeterminantofmembershipâ).
16 SeeNĂșñez,supra note14,at851â52(notingtheHoffmanmajorityheldawardingaremedyaffordedbylaborlawsrunsafoulofthepoliciesunderlyingimmigrationlaw).
17 See, e.g.,HoffmanPlasticCompounds,Inc.v.NLRB,535U.S.137,151(2002);Davilav.Grimes,No.2:09ÂCVÂ407,2010WL1737121,at*2(S.D.OhioApr.29,2010)(â[T]heCourtrecognizesthatPlaintiffs[sic]statusinthiscountrymayimpacthisclaimforlostfuturewages.â).
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 statutesâand thedefinitionscontainedwithinthemâareatthecenterofanincreasinglyambiguousinteraction of labor, employment, and immigration law. After analyzing thesestatutesandassociatedcaselaw,thiscommentdiscussestheIRCA,whichmakesitunlawfulforemployerstoemployundocumentedworkers.21Afterthepassageof the IRCA,American courts began applying theNLRAand theFLSAwithaneyetoimmigrationlaw,aninteractionthatculminatedintheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtâsdecisioninHoffman.22ThiscommentanalyzesHoffmananditsprogeny,notingthepotentialdangerinthecontinuedapplicationofHoffmanâsreasoning.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 infranotes183â85andaccompanyingtext.
20 See infranotes29â49andaccompanyingtext.
21 See infra notes50â95andaccompanyingtext(discussingemploymentandlaborlawcases);infranotes96â100andaccompanyingtext(discussingimmigrationlaw,particularlytheIRCA).
22 See infra notes102â10andaccompanyingtext(discussingseveralcasesleadingtoHoffman);infra notes111â24(discussingHoffman).
23 See infra notes136â78andaccompanyingtext.
24 See infra notes179â85andaccompanyingtext.
25 See infra notes 29â49andaccompanyingtext.
26 See infra notes50â95andaccompanyingtext.
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,CongresspassedtheNLRAin1935.29IntheNLRAâspolicydeclaration,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
TheNLRAexpresslydefinesemployeesârightsregardinglaboractivity.34ThestatutestatesthateveryemployeehastherighttoselfÂorganization,unionactivity,
27 See infra notes96 â110andaccompanyingtext(discussingimmigrationlaw,generally,andaselectgroupofcases);infra notes111â24andaccompanyingtext(discussingtheHoffman decision).
28 See infra notes125â35andaccompanyingtext.
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(notingtheNLRAâsfocusonâlaborÂmanagementrelationsofbusinessesengagedininterstatecommerceâ).
33 29U.S.C.§§153â156;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 âemployeeâ is a source of much legal and politicaldispute.UndertheNLRA,âemployeeâisadefinedtermandencompassesâanyemployee.â39Thestatutegoesontoenumeratealistofsevenexceptionstotheotherwiseexpansivedefinition.40Notably,noneofthelistedexceptionsmentionundocumentedworkersorimmigrationstatus.41
In the seventyÂfiveyears since theNLRAâspassage,numerousdecisionsbytheNLRBandAmericancourtshaveaddressedthemannerinwhichtheNLRAis applied to undocumented workers.42 Many of these cases have struggled tolocateundocumentedworkerswithinthedefinitionalframeworkoftheNLRA,particularlyontheissueofwhetherundocumentedworkersareâemployeesâunderthestatute.43WhilelaborlawsliketheNLRAdealwithworkersandtheircollectiverelationshipswithmanagement,employmentlawsprotecttheindividualrightsof
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 Id.§§158,160.
38 Id.§157.
39 Id.§152(3)(emphasisadded).Thedefinitionincludesthoseindividualswhoseemploymentwasterminatedbecauseofanyunfairlaborpracticeorlabordispute:
Thetermâemployeeâshallincludeanyemployee...andshallincludeanyindividualwhoseworkhasceasedasaconsequenceof,orinconnectionwith,anycurrentlabordisputeorbecauseofanyunfairlaborpractice,andwhohasnotobtainedanyotherregularandsubstantiallyequivalentemployment....
Id.
40 Id.Theexceptionsincludeagriculturallaborers,domesticservants,individualsemployedbytheirparentsorspouses,independentcontractors,supervisors,apersonemployedbyanemployersubjecttotheRailwayLaborAct,andanyotherpersonemployedbyanemployerthatdoesnotmeetthestatutorydefinitionofâemployer.âId.;see also id.§152(2);SureÂTan,Inc.v.NLRB,467U.S.883,892(1984)(notingthatundocumentedworkersarenotamongthelistedexceptionstothedefinitionofâemployeeâ).
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.137,151â52(2002);Sure-Tan, Inc.,467U.S.at891.
43 See, e.g.,Sure-Tan, Inc.,467U.S.at891â92;DelReyTortilleria,Inc.v.NLRB,967F.2d1115,1118â19.
620 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11
employees.44TheFLSA,oneofthepreeminentemploymentlaws,hasexperiencedasimilartrajectoryastheNLRAwithrespecttoundocumentedworkers.
CongresspassedtheFLSAthreeyearsaftersigningtheNLRAintolaw.45Itprovidesemployeeswithsuchprotectionsasminimumwagesandmaximumhourstocurblaborconditionsthaterodetheâminimumstandardoflivingnecessaryforhealth,efficiency,andgeneralwellÂbeingofworkers.â46LiketheNLRAbeforeit,theFLSAdefinesâemployeeâinaspecific,albeitbroadmanner.47Generally,theFLSAâsdefinitionincludesall individualsemployedbyemployers.48Withinthelistedexceptions,thereisnomentionofundocumentedworkers,illegalaliens,orimmigrationstatus.49
B. Cases Leading to Hoffman
BoththeNLRAandtheFLSAwerepassedwithinafewyearsofeachotherasapartoftheNewDeallegislation.50Assuch,thepoliciesbehindthestatutesare similar, and both employ extremely broad definitions of âemployee.â51Accordingly,courtshaveusedonestatuteâsdefinitionofemployeetogivecontextto 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)(statingthetraditionalviewâthatlaborandemploymentlawconstitutedichotomous,andinafundamentalrespectincompatible,regulatoryregimesâ).Compare Marka.rOThsTEIN&laNCElIEBMaN,EMplOyMENTlaw:CasEsaNdMaTErIals33(6thed.2007)(notingthatwhilecollectivebargaining is important to employment law, employment law addresses âindividual rather thancollectiverightsâ),with BlaCkâslawdICTIONary(9thed.2009)(defininglaborlawasâgoverningtherelationshipbetweenemployersandemployees,esp.lawgoverningthedealingsofemployersandtheunionsthatrepresentemployeesâ).
45 Compare NationalLaborRelationsAct,Pub.L.No.74Â198,49Stat.449(1935)(codifiedasamendedat29U.S.C.§§151â169(2006)),with FairLaborStandardsAct,ch.676,§1,52Stat.1060(1938)(codifiedasamendedat29U.S.C.§§201â219(2006)).
46 29U.S.C.§202.
47 Id.§203(e).
48 Id. § 203(e)(1) (âExcept as [otherwise] provided . . . the term âemployeeâ means anyindividualemployedbyanemployer.â).
49 Id.ExceptionstotheFLSAâsdefinitionofemployeeincludeemployeesofpublicagencies,intraÂfamily agricultural employees, and volunteers performing services for public agencies. Id.§203(e)(2)â(4).
50 See SeanFarhang&IraKatznelson,The Southern Imposition: Congress and Labor in the New Deal and Fair Deal,19sTud.aM.pOl.dEV.1,2(acknowledgingboththeNLRAandtheFLSAwerepartoftheâNewDeallaborregimeâ).
51 RutherfordFoodCorp.v.McComb,331U.S.722,723(1947);Patelv.QualityInnS.,846F.2d700,703n.3(11thCir.1988)(notingtheâNLRAâsdefinitionalframeworkisvirtuallyidenticaltothatoftheFLSAâ);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 NLRAâs definition ofâemployeeâinNLRB v. Apollo Tire Co.53InApollo,anemployeeâsmothermadeacomplainttotheDepartmentofLaborregardinghersonâswithheldovertimepay.54Shewasgivencomplaintformsforherson,whichshealsodistributedtootheremployees.55Sixofthesevenemployeeswhofiledcomplaintswerelaidoff.56TheNLRBissuedApolloTireaceaseanddesistorderforitsunfairlaborpracticesundersection157oftheNLRA.57
Onappeal,ApollocontendedthatCongressmeanttoexcludeundocumentedworkers from its definition of âemployeeâ to avoid running afoul of nationalimmigration policy.58 The court disagreed, finding the statutory language,combinedwiththeNLRBâspastholdings,clearlyplacedundocumentedworkerswithinthescopeoftheNLRA.59Thecourtalsonotedthatrulingotherwisewouldencourageemployerstoseekundocumentedworkersasemployees,whichwouldcertainlyruncontrarytoimmigrationpolicy.60
The United States Supreme Court addressed this same issue in Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB.61InSure-Tan,adisgruntledemployeraskedtheImmigrationandNaturalizationService(INS)tochecktheimmigrationstatusofseveralemployeesaftertheyparticipatedinunionactivities.62WhenINSagentsvisitedSureÂTanâsgroundstheyarrestedfiveemployees,noneofwhomhadproperdocumentation.63Inlieuofofficialdeportationproceedings,theworkerswerepermittedtoleavetheUnitedStatesvoluntarilyandwereonabusforMexicowithinaday.64Uponhearingthecase,theNLRBdeterminedSureÂTanviolatedtheNLRAâsprohibitionofunfairlaborpractices.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.at1182â83.
60 See id.at1183.JudgeKennedyarguedinaconcurringopinionthatleavingundocumentedworkers without labor law protections âwould leave helpless the very persons who most needprotectionfromexploitativeemployerpractices.âId.at1184.
61 467U.S.883,886(1984).
62 Id.at886â87.
63 Id.at887.
64 Id.
65 Id.at888.
622 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11
supportoftheunion,theNLRBfoundthatSureÂTanviolatedsections158(a)(1)and (3)of theNLRA.66Asa result, theNLRB issuedaceaseanddesistorderrequiringSureÂTantohaltitsunfairlaborpracticesandorderedreinstatementoftheemployeeswithbackpay.67
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed theNLRBâsorderbutmadeseveralmodificationsregardingreinstatementandbackpay.68 The court first determined that reinstatement would only be proper iftheworkersâpresenceandworkauthorizationwerelegal.69Simplyput,inorderto get their jobs back, the workers must have first entered the United Stateslegally or adjusted their immigration status and obtained official employmentauthorization.70ThecourtalsofoundtheNLRBâsdecisionallowingreinstatementwithinsixmonthswasinadequateandfailedtogivetheemployeesareasonabletimetoarrangeforlegalentry.71Theappellatecourtheldthatwhilebackpayshouldnotbegivenforanyperiodoftimeduringwhichtheemployeeswereineligibletoworkâwhichinthiscasemeanttheentiredurationoftheiremploymentâaminimumawardmustbesetinordertoâeffectuatethepoliciesofthe[NationalLaborRelations]Act.â 72
The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Sure-Tan decision in partandreversedit inpart.73ThemajorityopinionanalyzedtheNLRAâsdefinitionof âemployeeâ to determine whether the provisions of the NLRA applied toundocumented workers.74 Acknowledging that the NLRBâs construction ofthe termdeserved tremendous deference, theCourt nonetheless conducted itsownanalysisof the statutory language.75 It foundthatundocumentedworkersplainlyfallwithintheexpansivecategoryofâanyemployeeâbecausetheyarenotamongtheexpresslylistedexceptions.76TheCourtalsonotedsuchaconstructionfurtheredthepoliciesoftheNLRAbyâencouragingandprotectingthecollectiveÂ
66 SureÂTanInc.,234N.L.R.B.1187,1187(1978).TheNLRAstatesthatemployeeshavecertainrightsofselfÂorganizationandlaborinvolvementandthatanyattemptonthepartofanemployertointerferewiththoserightsisaviolation.See 29U.S.C.§157(a)(1)(2006).
67 Sure-Tan, Inc.,467U.S.at888â89.
68 Id.at889â90.
69 Id.at889.
70 See id.
71 Id.at889â90(orderingthatthereinstatementoffersbebothwritteninSpanishandheldopenforfouryears).
72 Id.at890(quotingSureÂTan,Inc.v.NLRB,672F.2d592,606(7thCir.1982)).
73 See id.at906.
74 Id.at891.
75 Id.
76 Id.at891â92.
2011 COMMENT 623
bargainingprocess.â77Further,theCourtconsideredwhetherSureÂTanâsreportingof its employees to the INSwasanunfairbusinesspractice, thereby renderingthecompanyliable.78Itdeterminedthattherearecertainoccasionsinwhichitis proper for an employer to report an illegal alienâwhen reporting criminalactivity,forexample.79InSure-Tan,however,theevidenceshowedthereportingwassolelyinretaliationfortheemployeesâunionactivity,whichwasprotectedbytheNLRA.80Assuch,SureÂTanâsactsviolatedtheNLRA.81
Although the majority affirmed the Seventh Circuitâs holding regardingthe applicationof theNLRA toundocumentedworkers, itdisagreedwith theappellatecourtâsremedialmodificationstotheNLRBâsorder.82TheCourtheldthatnotonlydidthelowercourtexceeditsauthority,butthatindoingsoitforcedtheNLRBtoactbeyonditsauthorityaswell.83ImposingaminimumsixÂmonthbackpayperiod,themajorityargued,wasbasedentirelyonspeculationandrancountertotheremedialpoliciesoftheNLRA.84Additionally,theappellatecourtâsmodificationsregardingthereinstatementordersweredeterminedanintrusionon the significantdeference afforded to theNLRB.85TheCourtheld that theNLRBwastheappropriatebodytofashionremedies,notthecourts.86Assuch,theCourtremandedthecasetotheSeventhCircuitwithinstructionsfor ittoremand the case back to the NLRB to create a remedial order in compliancewiththeCourtâsopinion.87JusticesBrennan,Marshall,Blackmun,andStevensjoinedinthedecisionbutdisagreedwiththemajorityâsrejectionoftheremedialmodification.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.at895â96.
81 Id.
82 Id.at898â99.
83 Id. at899â900.
84 Id.at901.
85 Id.at905.
86 Id.
87 Id.at906.
88 Id.
89 Id.at911(â[T]hecontradictionintheCourtâsopinionistotal.â).
90 Local512,Warehouse&OfficeWorkersâUnionv.NLRB,795F.2d705(9thCir.1986).
624 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11
bargaining.91TheNLRBâbasedonitsunderstandingofSure-Tanâmodifieditsbackpayordertobeconditionedonashowingoftheemployeesâlegalstatus.92TheNinthCircuitfoundthisreadingofSure-Tanmisguided.93Sure-Tan,itargued,innowaypermittedtheNLRBtolookatanemployeeâslegalstatusindetermininghiseligibilityforbackpay.94AccordingtotheNinthCircuit,Sure-Tanâsholdingmerely dealt with back pay to employees unavailable for workâand thereforeineligibleforbackpayâbecausetheywereoutofthecountrywithlittleprospectoflegalreentry;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.102Itdisagreedwiththelowercourtâscontentionthatinpassing
91 Id.at708.
92 Id.
93 See id.at716â17.
94 Id.at717.
95 Id.at716â17.
96 8U.S.C.§§1101â1537(2006).
97 Id. §1324a; see Lewinter, supra note51, at 514â15;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 INAâpermittedemployerstohireillegalaliensâ).
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.&pOlâyJ.125,141(2009)(notingtheuncertaintyof the interactionof immigration, labor, andemployment law following the IRCAâspassage);infra notes102â24andaccompanyingtext.
102 846F.2d700,706(11thCir.1988).
2011 COMMENT 625
the IRCA, Congress implicitly altered the FLSAâs definition of âemployeeâ byexcludingundocumentedworkers.103Thecourtalsodeterminedthatwhile theFLSAandtheNLRAareoftencoextensive,QualityInnSouthâsargumentthatSure-TanâsstanceonbackpayprecludedPatelfromremedialrelieflackedmerit.104ThedecisionsconcerningremediesundertheNLRA,thecourtconcluded,hadnobearingontheFLSAâsremedialscheme.105
InDel Rey Tortilleria, Inc. v. NLRB,theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSeventhCircuitconsideredwhetheranNLRBorderrequiringanemployerissuebackpaytoseveralundocumentedworkersviolatedtheIRCA.106Thecourtdetermined the employees were ineligible to receive back pay under Sure-TanbecausetheywerenotlawfullypermittedtoliveandworkintheUnitedStates.107TheworkersweredischargedbeforetheIRCAbecamelaw,whichledthecourttoacknowledgeitsholdingonlyappliedtopreÂIRCAdischarges.108Despitethatlimitation,however,thecourtthenstatedthattheIRCAâclearlybarsâtheNLRBfromawardingbackpay 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 unionÂorganizing campaign.112 In January ofthefollowingyear,HoffmanfiredCastroandseveralotheremployeeswhoalsoparticipatedintheunionizingactivities.113Threeyearslater,theNLRBdeterminedHoffmanterminatedCastroandfourothersinviolationoftheNLRA.114During
103 Id.at704(findingnothingintheIRCAoritslegislativehistorysupportingthenotionthatCongressintendedtolimitthescopeoftheFLSA).
104 Id.at705â06.
105 Id.at706.
106 976F.2d1115(7thCir.1992).
107 Id.at1121â22.
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.2d700,705â06(11thCir.1988).
110 535U.S.137(2002).
111 Id.at140.
112 Id.
113 Id.
114 Id.at140â41.
626 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11
asubsequenthearingbeforeanAdministrativeLawJudge(ALJ)todeterminetheamountofbackpayHoffmanowedtheworkers,CastroreportedhewasneitherbornnorlegallypermittedtoenterorworkintheUnitedStates.115CastroalsotestifiedthatheusedfraudulentdocumentstogainemploymentwithHoffman.116Finding a back pay reward in direct conflict with immigration law, the ALJrefusedtoorderpaymenttoCastro.117Fouryears later,theNLRBreversedtheALJâsdecision,findingthatapplyingtheprotectionsandremediesoftheNLRAwasâthemosteffectivewaytoaccommodateandfurtherthepoliciesembodiedin[theIRCA].â118
TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldtheNLRBcorrectlyappliedtheNLRAtoundocumentedworkersbuterredbygrantingbackpaybecauseimmigrationpolicylimitedtheNLRBâsremedialpower.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 Breyerâs 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 majorityâs 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,membershipisdefinedâandthusrightsareassignedâthrougheitheraterritorialorstatusÂbasedmodel.126Territorialmodelstreatphysical,geographicpresenceasthebasisofmembershipanditsassociatedrights.127ThestatusÂcentricapproachassignsrightstopersonswithinagiventerritoryaccordingtotheirimmigrationstatus.128Accordingly,inastatusÂbasedmodel,rightsareassignedtomembersofasocietybasedentirelyongovernmentallysanctionedanddistributed labels.129TheUnitedStatesanditsimmigrationlawstraditionallyfollowaterritorialÂbasedassignmentofrightsinwhichphysicalpresencewithinthejurisdictionestablishesaminimalsetofrights.130
SomeareasofthelawaremovingtowardamorenuancedformofterritorialÂbased 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.1,4â8(2006)(notingthediscrepancyineffectivetaxratesbetweenundocumentedanddocumentedworkersbasedonstatusâdespitetheirnetpositivecontributiontopubliccoffersâ);NĂșñez,supra note14,at824â28.
126 See ayElET shaChar, ThE BIrThrIghT lOTTEry: CITIzENshIp aNd glOBal INEqualITy35â36 (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 ofassigningrightsâderivefromeither...formalstatusunderlawor...territorialpresenceâ).
127 SeeBosniak,supra note126,at391(notingtheterritorialmethodâsfocusonâthenormativesignificanceofthephysicalfactofpresenceinthenationalspaceâ);NĂșñez,supra note14,at825â26(distinguishingbetweenterritorialandstatusÂbasedmodelsofmembership,notingtheformerâsuseof âgeographic boundariesâ in distributing rights); Rick Su, Local Fragmentation as Immigration Regulation,47hOus.l.rEV.367,391(2010)(â[B]oundarylinesnotonlydeterminewhichpublicresourcesareoursandwhicharetheirs,buthelptodefinewhoâweâandâtheyâare.â(quotinggEraldE.Frug,CITyMakINg15(1999))).
128 See walzEr,supra note125,at43(notingâfullmembershipâinacountryoftendependsonnationality).
129 SeeBosniak,supra note126,at390â91(discussingthebasicsofthestatusÂbasedapproach,inparticular the roleof âa stateâs immigration admissions andcitizenship allocation systemsâ increating various sets of rights depending on oneâs status); CunninghamÂParmeter, supra note 9,at1362(â[A]personâsbasketof rightsfillsashis immigrationstatus formalizes.â);NĂșñez, supra note14,at826 (discussing the shortcomingsofa statusÂbasedapproachand itsdependenceongovernmentalcategorization).
130 NĂșñez,supra note14,at819;seeCunninghamÂParmeter,supra note9,at1363(âRegardless of status,thereisaflooronthelevelofprotectionsenjoyedby all personsterritoriallypresentintheUnitedStates.â(emphasisadded)).
131 See infranotes132â34andaccompanyingtext.
132 SeePlylerv.Doe,457U.S.202,223â24(1982)(holdingundocumentedchildrenhavetherightofaccesstopubliceducationbecause,inter alia,theAmericaneducationsystemisinstrumentalincivicandcommunityengagement);JacquelynHagan,BriannaCastro&NestorRodriguez,The
628 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11
issuance of driverâs licenses to undocumented workers raises similar issues.133Laborandemploymentlaw,ontheotherhand,arebecomingincreasinglystatusÂbased.134 This shift has serious implications for workersâundocumented ornotâaswellasemployers.135
III.aNalysIs
ThissectionbeginsbyaddressingtheproblemsassociatedwithashifttowardastatusÂbasedassignmentofrights.136ItnotesthedangerofexpandingtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtâsholdinginHoffman 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)(notingdeportationâundermines thecornerstoneof statedU.S.immigrationpolicyâfamilyreunificationâ).
133 See sTEphENh.lEgOMsky&CrIsTINaM.rOdrĂguEz, IMMIgraTIONaNdrEFugEElawaNdpOlICy1225â28(5thed.2009)(notingthedebateoverwhetherdriverâs licensesaremeanttoenforceimmigrationlawsormaintainpublicsafetybyensuringaminimallevelofexperience);KevinR.Johnson,Driverâs Licenses and Undocumented Immigrants: The Future of Civil Rights Law?,5NEV.l.J.213,218â20(2004)(discussingthelegalandsocietalimplicationsofundocumentedimmigrantsreceivingdriverâslicenses).
134 NĂșñez,supra note14,at848;see EllenDannin,HoffmanPlastics as Labor LawâEquality At Last for Immigrant Workers?,44U.S.F.L.rEV. 393,412â13 (2009) (discussing theHoffmanCourtâsfocusonimmigrationstatusasthedeterminingfactorastotheavailabilityofremediesandarguingsuchafocuswasirrelevanttotheNLRA);Brackman,supranote32,at725(notingthatprotectionsundertheNLRAvarydependingononeâsimmigrationstatus).
135 NĂșñez, supra note 14, at 863; see CunninghamÂParmeter, supra note 9, at 1363â64(notingthat sinceHoffman,employershaveattemptedtoexpandtheCourtâsholdingto furtherlimittheremediesavailabletoundocumentedworkers);Griffith,supra note101,at160(discussinghowexcludingundocumentedworkersfromunionÂrelatedactivitieshurtstheir legallyemployedcounterpartsbydiminishingthecollectivebargainingpowerofthegroup).
136 See NĂșñez, supra note14,at863(discussinghowtheencroachmentofthestatusÂbasedapproach garners inconsistent and unpredictable legal outcomes and creates a reality in whichimmigration policy is undermined); Pham, supra note 14, at 1119â20, 1153â54 (noting thecreationof âanewparadigm,where immigrationborders aremovingandmultiple, affectingallresidents,bothintheinteriorandattheboundariesoftheUnitedStatesâandhowthesebordersaredetrimentaltotherightsofundocumentedworkers);infra notes140â44andaccompanyingtext.
137 See infra notes145â55andaccompanyingtext(discussingtheimplicationsofHoffman);infra notes156â60andaccompanyingtext(addressingthetenuousnatureof lifeasanundocuÂmentedworker); see alsoDavidL.Hudson,Jr.,Tales of Hoffman,92ÂDECA.B.A.J.12,12,14(2006)(notingtheconcernthatcourtshavemisinterpretedHoffmanandexpandeditsholdingtoofar);StephenH.Legomsky,Portraits of the Undocumented Immigrant: A Dialogue,44ga.l.rEV.65,157(2009)(discussinghowâundocumentedimmigrantsareperpetuallyatriskofapprehension,arrest,detention,anddeportationâ).
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 subÂclass of societal membership, which issimultaneouslyprotectedbyandexcludedfromthelawsoftheUnitedStates.141Undocumentedworkers areprotectedby theNLRA,butHoffman limits theirrecourse.142Underthecurrentlegalregime,immigrationstatus,morethananyothercategorizationortrait,determinestherightsoftheundocumentedworker.
HoffmananditsprogenyindicateashifttowardthestatusÂcentricapproach,whichlimitstherightsofworkersbasedontheirimmigrationstatus.143Limitingtherightsofundocumentedworkersbasedontheirstatustoleratesexploitationbyunscrupulousemployers,allowsdiscriminationbasedonperceivedimmigrationstatus,andnegativelyaffectstheentireworkforce.144Further,theshifttowardastatusÂcentricapproachcreatesconfusionandinconsistenciesinotherareasoflaw.
138 See infra notes161â73andaccompanyingtext.
139 See infra notes179â85andaccompanyingtext.
140 HoffmanPlasticCompounds, Inc.v.NLRB,535U.S.137,156â57(2002)(Breyer, J.,dissenting)(notingthatwithholdingremediesfromundocumentedworkersâleave[s]helplesstheverypersonswhomostneedprotectionfromexploitativeemployerpracticesâ);see Walsh,supra note8,at333â39(explainingtheHoffmanCourtâserrorinignoringthecongressionalintentbehindtheIRCAandhowthaterrornegativelyaffectstheNLRBâsdiscretionarypowers).
141 See, e.g., NĂșñez, supra note 14, at 853â54 (discussing the manner in which Hoffmanleaves undocumented workers in a ânoÂmanâsÂlandâ by deeming them protected by the NLRA,yetprecludingtheavailabilityofaremedy);Walsh,supra note8,at339(notingalossoflaborlawprotectionsaffectsâanentireclassofpeopleâ).
142 Hoffman,535U.S.at148â49.
143 SeeNĂșñez,supranote14,at849â50;infranote152andaccompanyingtext.
144 SeeSureÂTan,Inc.v.NLRB,467U.S.883,893(1984)(âApplicationoftheNLRAhelpstoassurethatthewagesandemploymentconditionsoflawful residentsarenotadverselyaffectedbythecompetitionofillegalalienemployeeswhoarenotsubjecttothestandardtermsofemployment.â(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 âdichotomize[s] twobodiesof law,ultimately trouncingworkerprotections in thenameof immigration controlâ);Griffith,supra note101,at160;Lewinter,supra note51,at537;NĂșñez,supra note14,at863(notinghowmaintainingseparatestandardsfordocumentedandundocumentedworkersâerode[s]workplacestandardsforallemployeesâ);Walsh,supra note8,at339â40.
630 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11
Undocumented workers live a precarious life in the United States.145Thepromiseofbetter jobswithhigherwagesattractsworkers fromallpartsof theworld.146Manyoftheseworkersareunabletoobtainproperdocumentation,yetentertheUnitedStatesnonetheless.147Theirmethodofentryiscertainlyillegal,yetmanyconsider theirveryexistenceânot just theirphysicalpresence in theUnitedStatesâillicit148andcontendthatundocumentedworkersstealjobsfromthelegalAmericanworkforce.149YettheseverysameworkersoftenfillvaluableandneededrolesinAmericansociety.150IfthetrendtowardastrictlystatusÂbased
145 See CunninghamÂParmeter, supranote9,at1362(discussingtheconditionsthatattractundocumentedworkerstotheUnitedStatesaswellasthegrowinghostilitytowardtheirpresence);Lewinter,supra note51,at509(notingwhilemanyundocumentedworkersreceivelowwagesandsufferpoorworkingconditions,theyareoftenafraidtoreportsuchabusesforfearofretaliationordeportation).
146 Hoffman, 535 U.S. at 155 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (noting the âattractive force ofemployment,whichlikeaâmagnetâpullsillegalimmigrantstowardtheUnitedStatesâ);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.615,623â24(2010)(notingthemost influentialfactorinundocumentedimmigrationis lucrative jobopportunities); see alsoJEFFrEys.passEl&dâVEraCOhN,apOrTraIT OFuNauThOrIzEd IMMIgraNTs IN ThEuNITEdsTaTEs21(2009)(findingthatwhilethemajorityofundocumentedimmigrantscomefromMexicoandotherLatinAmericancountries(81%),significantportionsoftheundocumentedpopulationcomefromAsia(11%),theMiddleEast(under2%),andEurope(over4%)).
147 See Lipman,supra note125,at11â13(discussinghowthedemandforimmigrantworkersexceedstheavailabilityofgreencardsorotherformsofobtaininglegalimmigrationstatus,therebyresultinginlargenumbersofundocumentedworkers);Nguyen,supra note146,at623â24(notingtheeconomicincentivesforenteringtheUnitedStatesillegallyoftenoutweightherisksoflifeasanundocumentedworkerinthemindsofpotentialimmigrants).
148 See 8U.S.C.§1325 (2006) (subjecting an alien that âenters or attempts to enterâ theUnitedStates illegally to afine, imprisonment,orboth);Legomsky, supra note137, at144â45(discussingthewaysinwhichimmigrationviolationsarevieweddifferentlyfromotherviolationsoflaw).Despiteillegalentrybeingamisdemeanorunder8U.S.C.§1325(a),undocumentedworkersare often considered egregious lawbreakers, and by extension their presence is deemed illegal.Legomsky,supranote137,at144â45; see alsoEdMuNdCahN,Law in the Consumer Perspective,in CONFrONTINgINJusTICE:ThEEdMONdCahNrEadEr15,26(LenoreL.Cahned.,1966)(notingthemannerinwhichthelawreducescomplexmatterstooverlysimplistictruthsusingtheexampleofhowajuveniledelinquentislabeledalawbreaker,ignoringâwhatelsehemaybeâ);CunninghamÂParmeter,supranote9,at1401(notinghowundocumentedworkersareviewedasviolatorsthatthreatenâdemocracyandmembershipforthoselawfullypresentâ).
149 See Paul Weiler, Enhancing Worker Lives Through Fairer Labor and Worklife Law in Comparative Perspective, 25 COMp. laB. l. & pOlây J. 143, 147â48 (2003) (claiming illegalimmigrantscauseaâmajorcompetitiveproblemâforthelegalworkforce);Brackman,supra note32,at717(notingthatundocumentedworkersâfloodâjobmarkets,leavingfewerandfewerjobsforlegalresidents);Nguyen,supra note146,at619(observingthatmanyintheUnitedStatesconsiderundocumentedimmigrantsathreattolegaljobÂseekersandaburdenonthesystem).
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(notingthatfortyÂeightpercentofagriculturalworkersareundocumented);CunninghamÂParmeter,supra
2011 COMMENT 631
conceptionofmembershipcontinues,undocumentedworkerswillfindthemselvesevenfurtherremovedfromtheprotectionsofthelawsoftheUnitedStates.151
SubsequentcaseshaveattemptedtoextendtheHoffmanmajorityâsreasoningto broader issues such as the issuance of driverâs licenses to undocumentedimmigrants,inquiriesintoimmigrationstatusduringdiscoveryindiscriminationsuits, workersâ compensation, and changing definitions of âemployee.â152This trend further destabilizes the rights of undocumentedworkers through apresumptionthattheirphysicalpresenceintheUnitedStateschallengesnotionsof membership.153They are physically present, yet legally invisible; they have
note9, at1362 (explaininghowundocumentedworkers are âwantedyetdisdained,neededyetderidedâ);Nguyen, supra note146,at615(arguingthehistoricaldisdain for immigrants in theUnitedStateshasbeentranslatedintopoliciesfocusedonstiflingillegalimmigration).
151 LenniBenson,The Invisible Worker,27N.C.J.INTâll.&COM.rEg.483,484(2001).Benson,whilediscussingthepotentialpitfallsoffocusingentirelyontheundocumentedworkerâsimmigrationstatus,notes:
Legaldefinitionsnotonlydefinewhoisalegalimmigrantbutalso,bynecessity,createtheconverseâtheâillegalâorundocumentedworkers....[They]gofarbeyondbeingmerelabels,and instead become the building blocks of legal status,creatingintentionalandunintentionalinteractionswithotherlawssuchascriminallaw,familylaw,taxlaw,andlaborandemploymentlaw.Theselabels...giverisetoa class of invisible people:Peoplewhodonotfitwithinthelegalsystem...existinginanundergroundworldâaworldofinvisibleworkers.
Id.(emphasisadded);seeCunninghamÂParmeter,supra note9,at1414(notingtheSupremeCourtâsportrayalofremedialreliefforundocumentedworkersastherewardingofillegalbehaviorthreatenstofurtherthedeclineinundocumentedworkersârights);Pham,supra note14,at1121(arguingthatbyrequiringproofofimmigrationstatusatvariousjunctureswithintheUnitedStatesâborders,the trendtowardstatusÂbasedmembership 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)(confirmingthelegalityofIowaâsâpracticeofdenyingdriverâslicensestoillegalaliensâ);Correav.WaymouthFarms,Inc.,664N.W.2d324,331â32(Minn.2003)(Gilbert,J.,dissenting)(arguingthatprovidingdisabilitybenefitstoaninjuredundocumentedworkerwouldârewardhimforstayingintheUnitedStatesillegallyandencouragehimtoviolateIRCAbyfindingfurtheremploymentâ);Crespov.EvergoCorp.,841A.2d471,476â77(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,at219â20(notingthatcourtsarehesitanttoinvalidatelawsprecludingundocumentedimmigrantsfromobtainingdriverâslicenses).
153 See NĂșñez,supra note14,at817;Pham,supra note14,at1152(notingimmigrationstatusnowformstheprimarydivisionbetweenthepeoplethatâbelonginournationalcommunityâandthosethatshouldremainoutsidebecausetheyhavenotbeengrantedthecommunityâspermissiontostay);see also StephenH.Legomsky,Immigration, Equality and Diversity,31COluM.J.TraNsNaTâll.319,335(discussingthewaysinwhichimmigrationissueschallengenotionsofcommunityandcommunalvalues).
632 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11
someminimalrights,butnomeansofenforcingthoserights.154BecauseastatusÂbasedapproachcreatesaclassofundocumentedworkerssimultaneouslyincludedinAmericansocietybutexcludedfromitslegalsystem,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 systemâoften seen as proof that the system merely serves tomaintain the status quo of political powerâdemonstrates the inverse of theundocumented workerâs 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 1â7 (noting thatundocumentedimmigrantsarerequiredtopaytaxesyetarebarredfromgovernmentbenefits).
156 See NĂșñez,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 CunninghamÂParmeter,supranote9,at1403.
159 See CunninghamÂParmeter,supra note9,at1363;NĂșñez,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, 327â28 (1987) (â[L]egal ideals are manipulable and [the] law serves tolegitimateexistingmaldistributionsofwealthandpower...[which]ringstrueforanyonewhohasexperiencedlifeinnonÂwhiteAmerica.â).
162 CunninghamÂParmeter,supranote9,at1402â03.
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.525,525â26(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)(analogizingthediscriminatoryeffectsJimCrowlawshadonAfricanÂAmericanstocontemporaryantiÂimmigrationlawsâeffectsonLatinos).
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 functioningproperlyandthatâallweneeddoisidentifyandcatchvillains.â166Inthecontextofcivilrights 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 15â31 (explaining theâimperialistâandâconsumerâperspectives).Cahnâsâimperialistâperspectiveassumesthepointofviewofgovernmentofficialsandseekstoinstillefficiencyandorder.Id.at17,24.Theâconsumerâperspective,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 lawâs âdeep investmentâ in the perpetrator perspective and how it weakensthelawâsabilitytoeffectivelyaddressdiscrimination);FreemanI,supranote164,at125(notingthedominantroleoftheperpetratorperspective);NamoiMurkakawa&KatherineBeckett,The Penology of Racial Innocence: The Erasure of Racism in the Study and Practice of Punishment,44law&sOCâyrEV.695,700â01(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.1139,1146â47(2010)(notingtheperpetratorperspectiveâserroneousfocusonâthemisfiringneuronsinafewpathologicalindividualsâ);IanF.HaneyLĂłpez,Post-Racial Racism: Racial Stratification and Mass Incarceration in the Age of Obama,98Cal.l.rEV.1023,1069 (2010) (noting âwhen conceptualized as bad acts by bad persons,â conceptions of racismanddiscriminationoverlookâdisparatesocialoutcomesâ);Nielson&Nelson, supranote165,at676(â[L]awhasthemorelimitedpurposeofremedyingspecificintentionalwrongs,ratherthanredressingsystemicaspectsofdiscriminationandinequality....â).
167 See FreemanII, supranote164,at1073â74(discussingtheassumptionthatoutlawingapracticeindicatesthatpracticewasadeviationfromthenorm,whichinturnimpliesthestatusquoprecludesthepractice).Accordingly,bysimplypassingantiÂdiscriminationlaws,societybelievesitisreinforcinganalreadyexistingnorm.See id.;see alsoCharlesR.LawrenceIII,The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism,39sTaN.l.rEV.317,325(1987)(describingtheperpetratorperspectivemindsetthatifthelawnolongerdiscriminates,societyisnotresponsibleforagroupâsâsubordinatepositionâ);ThomasRoss,Innocence and Affirmative Action,43VaNd.l.rEV.297,311â12(1990)(â[We]canclaimthemantleofinnocenceonly by denying the charge of racism.Weaswhitepersonsandnonracistsareinnocent;wehavedonenoharmtothosepeopleanddonotdeservetosufferforthesinsoftheother,notinnocentwhitepeoplewhowereracists.â(emphasisadded)).
168 See CahN, supra note 148, at 26 (noting how the law would benefit greatly from aâsensibilitytohumanimpactsâ);Kang,supranote166,at1147(arguingtheperpetratorperspectiveisoverlynarrowandthatsocietyshouldlookbeyondâindividualpathologiesâ);LĂłpez,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,thevictimperspectivelookstoactualresultsinthedayÂtoÂdaylivesofanadverselyaffectedgroup,whiletheperpetratorperspectivepresupposesthattheworkhasbeendone:assoonasthelegislationwassignedintolaw,societychanged.172
The Hoffman decision reinforces the perpetrator perspective. UnderHoffman,theundocumentedworkerâsentryandpresencerendershimtheoriginalperpetrator.173Assuch,theillegalimmigrant,havingneverattainedlegalstatus,isalwaysandalreadyviolatingtheruleoflaw.ThisreductiveapproachportraysanoverlynarrowÂsighteddepictionof theundocumentedworkerbyfixinghisidentitytoanillegalpresence,bymakinghimaperpetualperpetrator.
166,at1069(notingtheperpetratorperspectiveâisneithernaturalnorobvious...[and]ultimatelysupplanted a developing structural conception of racial hierarchyâ); Rebecca Davis, Comment,Opportunistic Hate Crimes Targeting Symbolic Property: When Free Speech Is Not Free,10J.gENdErraCE&JusT.93,104(2006)(âWhensocietyviewsthehateactasârationalâorasaâlogicalâextensionofacrimeinprocess,ratherthanextremeordeviant,societyitself âcontributestoandreinforcesthesocialenvironmentthatmakesthepracticesseemusefulorsensibletoperpetrators.ââ(quotingLuÂinWang,âSuitable Targetsâ? Parallels and Connections Between âHateâ Crimes and âDriving While Blackâ,6MICh.J.raCE&l.209,235(2001))).
169 SeeArklesetal.,supra note165,at597(describinghowthevictimperspectiveviewstheproblemasâthoseconditionsofactualsocialexistenceasamemberofanunderclassâ);DevonW.Carbado, (E)racing the Fourth Amendment, 100MICh.l.rEV. 946,970 (2002) (noting, in thecontextofracialdiscriminationinpolicesearches,thatthevictimperspectiveisnotconcernedwithindividualâbadcop[s],âbutratherwithhowraceshapesthesocietalinteractionsbetweenâpoliceofficersandnonwhitepersonsâ);FreemanII,supra note164,at1053(â[T]heproblemwillnotbesolveduntiltheconditionsassociatedwithithavebeeneliminated.â).
170 SeeFreeman I, supranote164, at125;Lawrence, supra note167, at324 (arguing thatantiÂdiscriminationlawsfocusedsolelyonculpablyracistindividualsleadâustothinkaboutracisminawaythatadvancesthediseaseratherthancombatingitâ).
171 See FreemanII,supra note164,at1053(notingactionstoremedyracialdiscriminationshould be centered around âaffirmative efforts to change the conditionâ). Similarly, Cahnâsâconsumerperspectiveârequiresaconsiderationoftheneedsofthoseaffectedbythelaw.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.477,509â10 (2006) (noting the victimperspectiveâfocusesontheinjuryorlosssufferedbythevictims,âwhiletheperpetratorperspectiveâreinforcesthenotionthatracismisprimarilyafunctionofindividualactorsâ).
173 See HoffmanPlasticCompounds,Inc.v.NLRB,535U.S.137,150â51(2002)(notingtheplaintiff âspresencewasinitselfaviolationofthelaw);CunninghamÂParmeter,supranote9,at1414(discussinghowfocusingonimmigrationstatusattheexpenseofotherstatusesisharmful).
2011 COMMENT 635
Iftheundocumentedworkerisdepictedastheperpetratorâifbyhismerepresencehe is the signifierofproblems resulting from illegal immigrationanddeemedtobeillegalâthensocietynolongerbearstheresponsibilityofaddressingthe problems underlying illegal immigration.174 If membership derives solelyfrom oneâs immigration status, then the problems of illegal immigration willnot simplyremainunfixed; theywillbecomeexacerbated.175ThestatusÂcentricapproach frames the issueof theundocumentedworkerâs 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.GiventheuncertaintyofastatusÂcentricapproachtoassigningrightstoundocumentedworkers,bestowingtherightsaffordedtoalldocumentedworkersonthosewithoutproperdocumentationwouldstrengthenthesystem.179
174 See Dannin,supra note134,at400â03(notingthatinHoffman,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt shifted blame from the NLRAÂviolating company to the undocumented worker victim);FreemanI, supra note164,at1055(discussinghowtheperpetratorperspectiveallowsothers insocietytoânotfeelanypersonalresponsibilityfortheconditionsassociatedwithdiscriminationâ).
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,at1822â23(notingstricterimmigrationenforcementadverselyaffectsbusiness,families,andcommunities).
176 Hoffman,535U.S.at150(âIndeed,awardingbackpayinacaselikethisnotonlytrivializesimmigrationlaws,italsocondonesandencouragesfutureviolations.â).
177 See Griffith,supra note101,at140â41(notingthenegativeeffectsofthecurrentimmigrationschemeasbeingâcatastrophicforthelaborrightsofimmigrantandU.S.workersâ(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.pOlây555,557(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)(â[M]anyemployersactuallyprefertohireimmigrantsratherthanU.S.workers,believingthat the former are more easily exploitable.â). Employer preference for undocumented workershasgivenrisetoanewbreedofdiscriminationclaimsbroughtbyU.S.workersagainstemployersthoughttohireaccordingtoimmigrationstatus.See Bloomekatz,supra,at1985.
179 See NĂșñez, supra note 14, at 853â54 (discussing how immigration status has âseepedâintomanyareasofthelaw,creatingcomplexânewdimension[s]âoflitigation);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 aclarificationofthestatuteâsscopeandlimitations.183Indoingso,CongresscoulddispeltheubiquitousconfusionregardingtheinteractionbetweentheIRCAandtheNLRA,FLSA,andotherstatutes.184Further,expresslanguagewillbolsterthepoliciessupportingthevariousstatutesbysimultaneouslydiscouragingbehaviorthosestatutesaimtocurb.185
180 See Walsh,supra note8,at338â39(assertingthatexcludingundocumentedworkersfromtheprotectionsof labor and employment lawswould âopen thefloodgate for serious abuses byemployers alongwith a depressionofwagesâ);Brackman, supra note 32, at 729â30 (discussingtheproblemsassociatedwithdenyingundocumentedworkersremediesundertheNLRA);IreneZopothHudson&SusanSchenck,Note,America: Land of Opportunity or Exploitation,19hOFsTralaB.&EMp.l.J.351,376(notinglaborandemploymentlawâsdualgoalsofdeterringviolationsandcompensatingvictims).
181 See Hoffman,535U.S.at155â56(Breyer,J.,dissenting)(notingthatwithholdingbackpayâcouldnotsignificantlyincreasethestrengthof[the]magneticforceâthatattractsundocumentedworkers to the United States); Harris, supra note 97, at 928â29 (noting that enforcing bothimmigrationand laborlawswillweakenemployerincentivestohireundocumentedworkers).
182 See Lewinter,supra note51,at537(notingtheHoffmandecisionârewardsemployerswhohireworkersthattheysuspecthavefalsifieddocumentsbyallowingtheseemployerstofloutNLRAprotectionswithoutsanctionâ).
183 H.R.rEp.NO.99-682(II),at5758(1986),reprinted in 1986U.S.C.C.A.N.5757,5758(â[T]hecommitteedoesnotintendthatany provisionofthisActwouldlimitthepowers...toremedyunfairpracticescommittedagainstundocumentedemployees....â(emphasisadded));see Patelv.QualityInnS.,846F.2d700,704(11thCir.1988)(notingthatinsection111(d)oftheIRCA,âCongressspecificallyauthorizedtheappropriationofadditionalfundsforincreasedFLSAenforcementonbehalfofundocumentedworkersâ).
184 SeeNguyen,supra note146,at639(notingtheconfusioninlowercourtssincetheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtâsdecisioninHoffman).
185 See Hoffman, 535 U.S. at 153 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (â[I]t reasonably helps to deterunlawfulactivitythatboth laborlawsandimmigrationlawsseektoprevent.â).
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.186TheNLRAandotherstatuteshavespecificdefinitionsofâemployee,âallofwhichareextremelybroad.187ImmigrationlawremainedsilentontheissueofundocumentedworkersuntilCongresspassedtheIRCA.188InHoffman, theCourt focused on the illegal presence, employment, and continued stay of anundocumented worker, citing national immigration policy as the impetus forthis focus.189TheCourtâsdecisionpushedundocumentedworkers further intothenetherworldof illegal immigrationbydepriving themof legallyprescribedremedies.190InrealityâandcontrarytothemajorityâscontentionâtheholdinginHoffmandidnotbolsterworkersârightsandimmigrationpolicy;itunderminedthembyfocusingsolelyonimmigrationstatus.191
Concern over the effects of illegal immigration on American job marketsremainsahotÂbuttonpoliticalissueaswellasasourceofmuchlegalcontention.192Aseffortstocombataperceivedtorrentofillegalimmigrantsaretakenupbythestates,193thefederalgovernmentremainsundecidedonhowtoproceed.Unlesscorrected,thedisconnectbetweenlabor,employment,andimmigrationlawwillonly lead to greater uncertainty. Issues ranging from employment verificationsystemsandcollectivebargainingtodriverâs licensesandtherighttoeducationwillremainunsettled.Inordertoharmonizethesestatutoryframeworks,CongressshouldacttoprovideundocumentedworkerswiththefullprotectionsoflaborandemploymentlawsandexpresslyforbidtheIRCAfromallowingimmigrationstatustoprecludetheremediesCongresssoughttoprovide.194
186 See Garcia, supra note 144, at 744 (noting the Hoffman Court âhighlighted theineffectivenessof immigration law, and labor lawâs inability toprotect allworkersâ); supra notes140â60andaccompanyingtext.
187 See supranotes29â95andaccompanyingtext(discussingthesestatutoryframeworks).
188 See supra notes102â10andaccompanyingtext(discussingrelevantimmigrationstatutesandcaselaw).
189 See supra notes111â24andaccompanyingtext(discussingHoffman).
190 See supra notes145â51andaccompanyingtext.
191 See supra notes143â85andaccompanyingtext(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/laÂoeÂjacobyÂutahÂ20110325;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,âTheAmericanpeopledonâtwantthesefolks,whoarecriminals,whohavecometothiscountryillegally....â).
193 See supranotes11â13andaccompanyingtext.
194 See supranotes179â85andaccompanyingtext.
638 wyOMINglawrEVIEw Vol.11