A new study from a University of Illinois expert in labor relations has concluded that most courts in the United States disregard a person’s immigration status in work related lawsuits. Michael LeRoy, professor of law and labor relations at Illinois, says that lower courts are essentially refusing to view lawsuits as an “occasion to enforce immigration laws.”
The study covered a 10-year period from 2002 to 2012 and analyzed federal and state work-related cases that cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. National Labor Relations Board. The research found that depending on the type of litigation, plaintiffs won between 60 and 77.5 percent of the time. Only 5 percent of the cases involved the outcome in the Hoffman Plastic case, where the court found a violation of an employment law but denied a monetary award because of the unlawful status of the plaintiff.
“Knowingly employing illegal aliens creates a cost-free way for employers to create a hazardous workplace where people get injured and the insurance rates don’t go up,” LeRoy said. “Someone gets injured—you cart them off, turn them over to immigration and report them as deportable aliens, then hire the next batch of illegal aliens and go on from there. This is exactly what a lot of lower courts were worried about—that it enables employers to violate the law without consequences, and thus encouraging more hiring of unlawful aliens. It’s also what the four dissenting Supreme Court justices in the Hoffman case were worried about.”
Shapiro, Cohen and Basinger, Ltd. is proud to have successfully litigated one of the first Illinois cases addressing the issue of whether an injured worker’s immigration status is admissible at trial. In 2007, Francisco Garcia was killed on the job at an Archer Daniels Midland plant in Decatur, Illinois when he was scalded with boiling liquid. At trial ADM tried to offer evidence that raised questions about Francisco Garcia’s immigration status. ADM’s lawyers even cited the Hoffman Plastic Supreme Court case to justify the use of such evidence. But the trial court agreed with our legal arguments and barred any such evidence. The Court of Appeals—firmly in line with the national trend uncovered by Professor LeRoy— also agreed with us that any reference to the alleged illegal immigration status of Mr. Garcia was unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant. Francisco Garcia’s case was a victory for the safety of workers everywhere.