Articles & Publications
Undocumented Workers: Knowledge of Employee's Status is Key
Feb 08, 2019
Immigration issues dominate the headlines. In litigation regarding employment rights for undocumented immigrants, the case(s) of Torres v. Precision came to very different conclusions. While the relevant facts are largely undisputed, the law applied and conclusions drawn by the state and federal courts varied drastically. One fact remains constant: Knowledge of the employee’s status is still a critical factor.
Basic facts
Ricardo Torres was an undocumented immigrant without permission to work in the United States. Torres was hired in January 2011 by Precision Industries. Torres provided a false Social Security Number. Torres reported a work-related injury about 5 months later, and Precision provided medical treatment. At some point, Torres hired an attorney to represent him. Torres was then discharged and given a Separation Notice citing "lack of work.” Precision claims it was unaware of Torres’s immigration status until after the termination.
Overview of State Litigation: Torres ‘12
Torres’s attorney filed a retaliatory discharge suit in state court in October 2012. The Defendants were listed as Precision Industries, P.I., Inc. d/b/a Precision Industries and Terry and Vicki Hedrick. Discovery and motion practice ensued, and, in December 2013, the Trial Court dismissed the suit based on lack of standing for Torres as an undocumented worker. Plaintiff appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court in 2014. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied Defendants’ request for permission to appeal, and the case was remanded back to the trial court. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the state court action in November 2016.
Overview of Federal Litigation: Torres ‘16
In December 2016, Torres filed a new suit, this time against only one defendant, Precision Industries, Inc., a/k/a P.I., Inc., in the United States District Court, Western District of Tennessee. This diversity action alleged Precision knew when it hired him in 2011 that he was an undocumented immigrant. He further alleged that he was fired on September 7, 2012. This was allegedly the same day his attorney called to request Precision’s fax number, after which the employer’s safety manager and general manager confronted him about his workers’ compensation claim and berated him for hiring an attorney.
The District Court held a bench trial. At the close of Plaintiff’s proof, Defendant moved orally under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) for a judgment on partial findings. This rule allows a court to “enter judgment against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.” The parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The District Court granted the Motion and directed a judgment in favor of Defendant.
Analysis and comparison
In Torres ’12, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the state trial court’s sole basis for dismissal: Plaintiff’s status as an undocumented worker made him incapable of employment, hence unable to bring his claim. The court characterized this as a matter of standing. The court then analyzed what “rights fall within the zone of interest a retaliatory discharge cause of action seeks to protect and then determine whether Torres, as an unauthorized alien, possesses such rights.” The court reviewed the history of retaliatory discharge, finding the establishment of the tort the seminal case of Clanton vs. Cain-Sloan Co., which established a common law tort of retaliatory discharge when the discharge was an attempt to avoid the legislative intent of the workers' compensation system. Citing this as an issue of first impression in Tennessee, the state appeals court referenced various courts in federal jurisdiction that “have delicately balanced” the competing goals of immigration and labor and employment laws. Citing Clanton, the state appellate court found that depriving unauthorized workers this relief could incentivize employers to hire illegal aliens if they knew they could escape workers compensation liability. The Court found the ability to file a retaliatory discharge action was a “natural extension” of what was already permitted in Tennessee Courts, so summary judgment was improper. The case was remanded to the trial court.
In Torres ’16, the District Court directed a judgment in favor of Defendant. A key finding of fact favorable to Precision was that the employer was unaware that Torres was not authorized to work in the U.S. prior to Plaintiff’s termination. However, the District Court made “no findings or conclusions as to the substance of Plaintiff’s claim.” The Court recognized Clanton and the workers compensation statutes in Tennessee offering relief to all employees “lawfully or unlawfully employed.” The District Court conceded Torres could receive workers compensation benefits pursuant to state law, and that if only Tennessee state law applied, Torres could obtain relief for retaliatory discharge. Yet the District Court stated that federal law and policy precluded recovery for Torres for such a claim. The Court held that the law and policy embodied in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”) and articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hoffman preempted any recovery.
As noted above, the District Court found that Precision was unaware of Plaintiff’s immigration status. The Court specifically stated that this holding was limited to situations where the employer is unaware of an employee’s true immigration status, noting that this “serves a dual purpose.” The first was to address concerns that employers may abuse immigration status by knowingly hiring unauthorized workers. Secondly, the Court stated it “maintains a consistency with federal immigration policy by ensuring that employers do not profit from their own violations of IRCA.” Torres appealed the District Court ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
As it now stands
Pending appellate review, it seems that in either forum the knowledge of the employer is critical. The federal court made a finding of fact that the employer did not know Torres was an undocumented worker. Torres insisted in his complaint that the employer knew. It appears if an employer knowingly hires an undocumented worker, the employee will likely be able to bring a retaliatory discharge claim. Stay tuned.
[1] Torres v. Precision Indus., P.I. Inc., et al, No. W2014-00032-COA-R3-CV, 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2014) and Torres v. Precision Indus., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-01319-STA-egb, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120410 (W.D. Tenn. July 19, 2018).
[1] Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co., 677 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn. 1984).
[1] Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002).
LWDN Newsletter
Leitner Williams is proud to offer our clients the opportunity to receive e-mail newsletters on various topics of the law.