Undocumented workers who lack the legal right to work in the United States may still sue for violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and other labor laws, although their status may affect their remedies. On June 26, 2014, the California Supreme Court ruled in Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co. (No. S196568) that a worker’s immigration status does not bar his action against his former employer under FEHA, and that state laws which protect employees cover all individuals employed in California, including employees who may have used false documents to obtain a job. The Court’s decision is a powerful reaffirmation of California’s stance on undocumented workers: workers have the same rights and remedies regardless of immigration status.
Vicente Salas, a seasonal employee, suffered two back injuries during his employment with Sierra Chemical Co. Salas brought a FEHA claim against Sierra, alleging that it declined to rehire him for the season because he had not fully recovered from his back injury and discriminated against him for having filed a workers’ compensation claim. Sierra thereafter learned of information suggesting that Salas had used another man’s Social Security number in order to gain employment. Sierra moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Salas’ action was barred by the doctrines of after-acquired evidence and unclean hands. Specifically, Sierra contended that Salas’ action was barred because he had no Social Security number of his own and misrepresented that he was legally qualified for employment. The trial court denied the motion, but after Sierra sought a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal, the trial court vacated its order and granted the motion. Salas appealed, the Court of Appeal affirmed, and Salas petitioned the California Supreme Court for review.
The Court determined that the lower courts’ decisions were in error and reaffirmed a 2002 statute enacted by the California Legislature SB 1818, which explicitly recognizes that the employment rights and remedies provided by California state law apply to all workers irrespective of their immigration status. SB 1818 was enacted in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision (Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB (2002) 535 U.S. 137), which held that the National Labor Relations Board could not award backpay to an illegal alien.
The Court rejected Sierra’s argument that Salas’ fraudulent use of the Social Security number should prevent him from pursuing his discrimination claims, stating that to hold otherwise would effectively immunize employers that discriminate or retaliate against workers who assert their rights against workplace injustices. The Court noted that to permit employers to hire and exploit immigrant workers with impunity would actually increase undocumented immigration. However, the Court held that Salas’ recovery could not include compensation for wages that he would have earned after Sierra learned that he had used false documentation to be hired.
Ultimately, the Court had to weigh the competing policy interests of worker protection versus immigration status. The Court chose the former, despite the fact that the employee admitted to using false and fraudulent documents to obtain the job, and thus, never even had the legal right to work.
This document is intended to provide you with general information about employment law developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.