New York Court of Appeals Resolves Appellate Division Conflict: Illegal/Undocumented Laborers May Receive Lost Wages
February, 2006
New York’s highest court, The Court of Appeals, recently held that non-US citizens who are illegal/undocumented laborers are entitled to make a claim for lost wages, despite their status, unless it is shown they fraudulently submitted papers purporting to show their legality to work in the Country. Balbuena v. IDR Realty, LLC, et al.; Majlinger v. Cassino Contracting, et al., citation pending (February 21, 2006). In rendering its decision, the Court considered and analyzed the long history of Federal Immigration law in the context of illegal workers.
In 1952, Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. § 1101 [2005]) as a “comprehensive federal statutory scheme for regulation of immigration and naturalization.” The purpose of the INA was to delineate “the terms and conditions of admission to the country and the subsequent treatment of aliens lawfully in this country.” However, because the Act did not prohibit employers from retaining the services of illegal aliens who were already in the country, States were permitted to craft their own laws with regard to the employment of illegal aliens.
In 1986, Congress adopted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), with a view towards curtailing illegal immigration (for the purposes of attaining work) via employer sanctions. The most prevalent tool stemming from the IRCA was the initiation of a “green card” system, which essentially provided a standard form of paperwork for legal, or qualifying, employees to carry so as to ensure compliance with immigration laws. The burden was placed on the employer to either ensure the worker had a green card prior to employment, or to terminate an employee if it was determined during the work that he did not possess a green card.
These federal statutes were brought to the forefront in 2002, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Bd., 535 US 137 (2002). Hoffman interpreted both the INA and the IRCA with regard to an illegal worker’s claim for lost wages in a personal injury lawsuit. The Supreme Court held that an undocumented alien who provided fraudulent work papers in violation of federal law could not be awarded back pay for work not performed as a result of an employer’s unfair labor practice. The Court held that an illegal worker should not be rewarded under these circumstances, where Federal Law had been improperly circumvented.
Defendants in Balbuena/Majlinger argued that Hoffman preempted state law, and prohibited the lost wage claims of illegal aliens. Plaintiffs, joined by the Attorney General, argued that Hoffman did not preempt state law, and that disallowing such claims would provide great incentives for employers to hire illegal workers, and also to save money by failing to provide work-site safeguards for the protection of these workers.
The Court of Appeals stated that there is a very strong presumption against federal pre-emption, especially in the area of occupational safety and hazard prevention. A lengthy discussion was had concerning whether the federal statutes at issue did, in fact, pre-empt state law. The Court ultimately interpreted the legislative history of the IRCA as not wanting “to undermine or diminish in any way labor protections in existing law.” The Court went on to adopt Plaintiffs’ argument that less protections would be afforded to workers if employers knew they could escape potential lost wage claims if illegal workers were injured on the job. The Court distinguished Hoffman on the grounds that the plaintiff in Hoffman, in addition to being an illegal alien, had furnished fraudulent documentation to his employer, falsely indicating he was legal. Although neither Balbuena or Majlinger were legal residents, they did not affirmatively perform any other deceptive acts. Their status as illegal alone, was not enough for the Court to deny them of their wage claim.
Learning Point:
In Balbuena/Majlinger, the Court of Appeals was confronted with opposite decisions from First and Second Appellate Departments regarding the issue on hand. In its final decision, the Court decided to protect workers and state’s rights, as opposed to punishing illegal workers under the federal statute. This decision should not change the behavior of New York’s employers, as they must continue to provide all requisite safeguards to their employees under the Labor Law. Further, there is unlikely to be a stream of illegal workers to the State as a result of this decision, nor is it foreseeable that illegal workers will become intentionally injured under the theory that they will be able to recoup for lost wages. •
Back to New York CM Report of Recent Decisions (2006v1) 2006 Volume 1 Table of Contents
