NATIONAL IMMIGRATIONL AW CENTER

Assessing the Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decision in
Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB on Immigrant Workers
and Recent Developments
by Amy Sugimori and Rebecca Smith, National Employment Law Project (NELP)
and Ana Avendaño and Marielena Hincapië, National Immigration Law Center (NILC)On March 27, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB1that has generated concern among immigrant workers, communities, and immigrant rights and laboradvocates. In Hoffman, the Supreme Court held that a worker who is undocumented could not recover the
remedy of back pay under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The case involved a worker named Jose Castro who was working in a factory in California and was fired
along with other co-workers in clear violation of the NLRA for his organizing activities. The National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) ordered the employer to cease and desist and put up a posting stating that it had
violated the law. The employer was also ordered to reinstate Castro and provide him with back pay for thetime he was not working because he had been illegally fired.
During an NLRB hearing, Castro admitted he had used false documents to establish work authorization andthat he was actually undocumented. However, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the employer's
argument that Castro should not receive back pay because he is undocumented and affirmed the NLRB’s
back pay award, which the agency tolled to the date when the employer first obtained evidence that Castro
was undocumented. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that undocumented
workers cannot receive back pay under the NLRA. In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court focusedon the fact that the “legal landscape [had] now significantly changed,”2 specifically because Congress hadenacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which prohibits employers from knowingly
hiring undocumented workers and set up an entire scheme for employment verification.
Prior to Hoffman and the passage of IRCA, the Supreme Court addressed whether an undocumented
worker was eligible for reinstatement and back pay under the NLRA in Sure-Tan, Inc. v. N.L.R.B..3 In SureTan, the Supreme Court upheld the NLRB’s construction of the term “employee” in the NLRA to include
undocumented workers. In so doing, the Court observed that:[i]f undocumented alien employees were excluded from participation in union activities and fromprotections against employer intimidation, there would be created a subclass of workers without a
1 __ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 1275 (2002).
2 Id. at 1282.

3 467 U.S. 883.

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT | 55 John St., 7th Floor Ÿ New York, N.Y. 10038 Ÿ (212) 285-3025 Ÿ (212) 285-3044 fx
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER | 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2850 Ÿ Los Angeles, CA 90010 Ÿ (213) 639-3900 Ÿ (213) 639-3911 fx

Impact of Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB Ÿ NELP & NILC Ÿ Page 2

comparable stake in the collective goals of their legally resident co-workers, thereby eroding theunity of all the employees and impeding effective collective bargaining.4
Despite the enactment of IRCA, various federal courts had also addressed the question—prior to
Hoffman—of what relief undocumented workers may seek for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act5, as well as wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)6, andviolations of the NLRA.
Fortunately, the Hoffman decision reaffirmed Sure-Tan’s holding that undocumented workers are
considered “employees” for purposes of the NLRA. While undocumented workers continue to have theright to organize, vote for, and elect a union, as well as participate in collective bargaining and otheractivities protected by the NLRA, the practical impact of the Hoffman decision is that undocumented
workers fired for engaging in such “protected activities” would not be eligible for the critical remedy of backpay.
It is important to note that Hoffman dealt with an employer who allegedly did not know that the employee inquestion was undocumented and had used false documents to get his job. Consequently, the Supreme
Court did not address whether back pay would be available to an undocumented worker whose employer
had knowledge of her lack of work authorization.7 However, in a pre-Hoffman case, the NLRB did address
this issue in NLRB v. A.P.R.A. Fuel Oil Buyers Corp., Inc.,8 in which the Second Circuit affirmed an NLRB
award of back pay and conditional back pay to workers whose employer hired them “knowing” that they
were undocumented and later retaliated against them for union activities. In A.P.R.A., the NLRB ordered
the undocumented workers reinstated conditioned upon their ability to “present within a reasonable time,
INS Form I-9 and the appropriate supporting documents, in order to allow the [employer] to meet its
obligations under IRCA.”9 With respect to back pay, the NLRB ordered that the employees “be paid fromthe date of their unlawful discharge until either their qualification for future employment or the expiration of
the reasonable time allowed for them to comply with IRCA.”10 The court upheld this creative “conditional
reinstatement” remedy awarded by the NLRB noting “[t]he time limit is intended to ensure that theCompany will not be pressured to reinstate them in violation of IRCA in an effort to lessen its liability.”11
The NLRB has determined that Hoffman leaves certain remedies available to undocumented
workers, including conditional reinstatement
In July 2002, the general counsel (GC) of the NLRB issued guidance interpreting how Hoffman affects theagency’s practice and procedures.12 That guidance is important because the Supreme Court specifically
4 Id. at 893.

5 See, e.g., Rios v. Local 638, 860 F.2d 1168, 1173 (2d Cir. 1988); E.E.O.C. v. Hacienda Hotel, 881 F.2d 1504 (E.D. Cal. 1989).

But see, Egbuna v. Time Life, 153 F.3d 184 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding that individual without work authorization was not “qualified”
for job, and therefore not protected by Title VII); and Reyes-Gaona v. North Carolina Growers’ Ass’n., 250 F.3d 861 (4th Cir.
2001) (holding that the ADEA did not protect foreign national applying for an H-2A job because he was not authorized to work,and therefore not qualified).
6 See, Patel v. Quality Inn South, 846 F.2d 700, (11th Cir. 1988)
7 See, Hoffman, 122 S.Ct. at 1287 (Dissenting , J. Breyer).
8 134 F.3d 50 (2nd Cir. 1997).
9 Id. at 57.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 See, “Procedures and Remedies for Discriminatees Who May Be Undocumented Aliens After Hoffman Plastic Compounds,Inc.” GC 02-06 (July 19, 2002), available at http://www.nlrb.gov/gcmemo/gc02-06.html.

Impact of Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB Ÿ NELP & NILC Ÿ Page 3

addressed the NLRB’s remedies in Hoffman. The GC reaffirmed that undocumented workers are coveredby the NLRA, and that an employer who discharges an employee in violation of the NLRA is liable
regardless of the worker’s immigration status.
For purposes of back pay, the GC has decided not to distinguish between cases where the employer did
not know that it had hired an undocumented worker, as in Hoffman, and cases where the employer“knowingly employed” undocumented workers, even though the Supreme Court did not address the latter.
In essence the GC has determined that the Hoffman decision precludes back pay for “work not performed”
as an appropriate remedy for undocumented workers. However, back pay is permitted “for work previously
performed under unlawfully imposed terms and conditions.” The GC left open the question of whether backpay is available to undocumented workers who have been demoted.
As to reinstatement, the GC cites to A.P.R.A., stating that “[c]onditional reinstatement remains appropriate
to remedy the unlawful discharge of undocumented discriminatees whom an employer knowingly hires.”13
A worker who benefits from such an order will be given a “reasonable period of time” to establish work
eligibility and to comply with I-9 requirements, but they would not be entitled to back pay during that periodof time.
Hoffman’s impact on undocumented workers’ rights under federal antidiscrimination laws
While the Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman focused on remedies under the NLRA and did not address
whether undocumented workers are eligible for back pay under other federal antidiscrimination laws,
Hoffman makes it unlikely that traditional back pay—that is, compensation for time not worked—will beavailable to undocumented workers under other antidiscrimination laws.
Indeed, in rescinding its former “Enforcement Guidance on Remedies Available to Undocumented Workers
under Federal Employment Discrimination Laws,” the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
also reaffirmed that it will continue to enforce its statutes14 on behalf of all employees, including
undocumented workers.15 The EEOC stated that “[t]he Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman in no way
calls into question the settled principle that undocumented workers are covered by the federal employment
discrimination statutes.”16 However, the EEOC has already determined that because the remedy of backpay under its statutes is so similar to back pay under the NLRA, Hoffman’s holding prohibits the agency
from awarding such a remedy to undocumented workers. The EEOC has not replaced its former guidance,
and is still evaluating Hoffman’s impact on other remedies—such as compensatory and punitive
damages—and on the agency’s procedures.
Warning: some courts may attempt to expand Hoffman’s holding to deny standing to
undocumented workers
While Hoffman made clear that undocumented workers are “employees” under the statute—that is, thatthey have standing under the NLRA—that holding does not necessarily mean that undocumented workers
have standing under other employment discrimination laws. A recent federal court in New York issued atroubling decision in an ADA case that suggested that Hoffman has made the issue of immigration status
13 Id.

14 The EEOC enforces Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),

and the Equal Pay act (EPA).
15 For rescission notice, visit the EEOC’s website at www.eeoc.gov/docs/undoc-rescind.html.
16 Id.

Impact of Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB Ÿ NELP & NILC Ÿ Page 4

relevant to a worker’s standing to sue for relief under the antidiscrimination laws. The ruling may well be anindicator of things to come. In denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss in Lopez v. Superflex, Ltd.,17 thecourt noted:
If Hoffman Plastic does deny undocumented workers the relief sought by plaintiff, then he would
lack standing. As that issue is not ripe for decision, we decline to rule on it at this time. However, if
plaintiff were to admit to being in the United States illegally, or were to refuse to answer questions
regarding his status on the grounds that it is not relevant, then the issue of his standing would
properly be before us, and we would address the issue of whether Hoffman Plastic applies to ADA
claims for compensatory and punitive damages brought by undocumented aliens.18
The court further observed in a footnote: “If we do ultimately reach this issue, it could result in a judicial
finding that plaintiff is illegally residing in the United States and therefore is subject to deportation.”19
The danger, of course, is that if courts rule that, in light of Hoffman, undocumented workers do not havestanding under the antidiscrimination laws, an entire class of workers—who are already vulnerable toexploitation—would be left with no recourse.
Eligibility of undocumented workers for relief under FLSA
One of the remedies available to undocumented workers that has clearly survived Hoffman is theavailability of “back pay” for work actually performed under the FLSA. “Back pay” under FLSA is different
from back pay under the NLRA and the antidiscrimination laws. Under the other laws, back pay is paymentof wages that the worker would have earned if not for the unlawful termination or other discrimination.
Under FLSA, “back pay” is payment of wages the worker actually earned but was not paid.20
Prior to Hoffman, the Eleventh Circuit had held that an undocumented worker was eligible for back pay
under the FLSA in Patel v. Quality Inn South.21 The court concluded that “the FLSA’s coverage of
undocumented aliens is fully consistent with the IRCA and the policies behind it.”22 Moreover, the court
concluded that the plaintiff was eligible for back pay, distinguishing the situation from the one in Sure-Tanon the basis that the plaintiff was “not attempting to recover back pay for being unlawfully deprived of a job.
Rather, he simply seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime for work already performed.”23
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman, federal courts have held that Hoffman is not relevant
to back pay under the FLSA or the state wage and hour laws, and have made rulings favoring plaintiffs.24
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has stated that it will fully and vigorously enforce the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the FLSA, the Migrant and Seasonal Worker Protection Act (AWPA), and
17 See, 2002 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 15538 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
18 Id. at *8.

19 Id., at n.4.

There is one form of back pay under the FLSA that more closely resembles back pay under the NLRA and theantidiscrimination laws. This form of back pay appears in the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA – and is payment of wages
that the worker would have earned if not for his or her unlawful termination by the employer in retaliation for having initiated acomplaint under the FLSA.
21 See, supra n. 5.
22 Id., at 704.
23 Id.
24 See, Flores v Albertson’s, Inc, 2002 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 6171, (C.D. Cal. 2002); and Liu, et al. v Donna Karan International, Inc.,
207 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
20

Impact of Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB Ÿ NELP & NILC Ÿ Page 5

the Mine Safety and Health Act without regard to whether an employee is documented or undocumented.”25
The DOL statement leaves unaddressed the issue of back pay for undocumented workers who suffer
retaliation on the job.26
Moreover, at least one federal court, in an action brought under the FSLA for retaliation, has held that
Hoffman did not bar the eligibility of undocumented workers for compensatory and punitive damages. In
Singh v. Jutla, et al.,27 the employer reported a former employee to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) just one day after agreeing to settle the plaintiff’s claim for unpaid wages. In denying thedefendants’ motion to dismiss, the court rejected the argument that Hoffman barred plaintiff’s retaliation
claim. The court distinguished Hoffman by highlighting that this defendant not only “knowingly” hired theplaintiff but actively recruited him in India and went on to exploit him for three years without paying him forwork performed.
Concerns about discovery of workers’ immigration status
Perhaps the greatest obstacle that advocates are facing since Hoffman has been persistent attempts bydefendants to inquire into plaintiffs’ immigration status. They have claimed that the issue of plaintiffs’
immigration status is relevant to the potential damages for which the employer will be liable. However,discovery into a worker’s immigration status—whether by the agency or by the employer—is likely to havea serious chilling effect on immigrant workers contemplating whether to file a claim and on those who havecourageously filed claims.
Fortunately, the NLRB and the EEOC have limited such inquiries. They have concluded that while aworker’s immigration status may be relevant in determining remedies under the NLRA and the federal
antidiscrimination laws, immigration status has no bearing on liability. Because remedies play a central
part in the EEOC’s conciliation process, the issue may arise in an earlier phase of proceedings before thatagency than it would before the NLRB, where remedies are determined in a separate and distinct process.
The NLRB GC has determined that “[r]egions have no obligation to investigate an employee’s immigration
status unless a respondent affirmatively establishes the existence of a substantial immigration issue. A
substantial immigration issue is lodged when an employer establishes that it knows or has reason to knowthat a discriminatee is undocumented.”28 Similarly, the EEOC has stated that it “will not, on its own
initiative, inquire into a worker’s immigration status. Nor will the EEOC consider an individual’s immigration
status when examining the underlying merits of a charge.”29
Neither agency has clarified the burden employers will have to meet to establish that an immigration issue
exists, thereby warranting discovery into the workers’ immigration status. The NLRB, for example, has notmade clear what constitutes a “substantial immigration issue,” other than stating that it is not mere
speculation. Neither agency has made clear whether the method by which an employer discovers that aworker lacks work authorization will any bearing on the agency’s decision to accept that information. The
danger is that employers may obtain that information from workers engaged in protected activity throughunlawful means (for example, by threats of deportation, which clearly violate the NLRA), and then provide it
to the NLRB in an effort to avoid back pay obligations. Although the NLRB GC is allowing charging parties
25 U.S. Department of Labor, Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc, v NLRB, Questions and Answers.

26 See also, Fact Sheet #48: Application of U.S. Labor Laws to Immigrant Workers: Effect of Hoffman Plastics decision on laws
enforced by the Wage and Hour Division. <available at: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs48.htm>.
27 Singh v. Jutla, et al., 214 F. Supp.2d 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
28 See, supra n. 10.
29 See, supra n. 12.

Impact of Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB Ÿ NELP & NILC Ÿ Page 6

to respond to an employer’s proffer of evidence of immigration status, that process alone does not protect
workers.
Additionally, defense attorneys are increasingly using the discovery process to inquire into a plaintiff’s
immigration status, ostensibly to obtain information that is allegedly relevant to the damages claimed. But
these measures clearly serve to intimidate the plaintiff into dropping the charges altogether, for fear
potential immigration consequences should she be retaliated against. For example, in Flores, et al. v
Albertsons,30 defendants used Hoffman to request immigration documents from members of a class action
brought by janitors in federal court for unpaid wages under state and federal law. The court held that
Hoffman did not apply to claims of unpaid wages and noted that allowing such discovery was certain tohave a chilling effect on the plaintiffs (i.e., would cause them to drop out of the case rather than risk
disclosure of their status). In a similar case for unpaid wages and overtime, Liu, et. al. v. Donna KaranInternational, Inc.,31 the defendant made a discovery request for the disclosure of plaintiff garment workers’
immigration status, but the federal court denied the request on the grounds that release of such information
is more harmful than relevant. In another case under Title VII, Rivera et al., v. Nibco, plaintiffs had secured
a pre-Hoffman protective order,32 which prohibited the defendant from using the discovery process toinquire into plaintiffs’ immigration status. Immediately following the Hoffman decision, the defense moved
for reconsideration of that protective order, subsequently appealing to the Ninth Circuit for an interlocutory
appeal, which has been certified. The underlying case has now been stayed pending the outcome of theappeal.33
To address defendants’ use of the discovery process in this manner, the NLRB and the EEOC should beurged to adopt a heightened evidentiary standard. For example, the agencies should allow immigration
status to become relevant only after the employer proves that it lawfully obtained that information throughmeans independent of the underlying charge. It is now more critical than ever that advocates seek
protective orders to prevent immigration status from having to be disclosed, as well as using motions inlimine and other litigation tools to prevent disclosing a plaintiff’s status.
Conclusion
While most of the litigation undertaken since Hoffman has been at the federal court level, it is likely thatsome state courts will continue to limit its impact on remedies available to undocumented workers understate employment and labor laws. Of the state cases litigated thus far, none has squarely addressed theissue of continuing availability of back pay under state law, except in the context of unpaid wages for “workperformed.”34 Additionally, in Vasquez v. Eagle Alloy, a workers’ compensation case pending in theMichigan Court of Appeals, the court will determine whether time loss and medical benefits are available toundocumented injured workers.35

30.See, supra n. 24.
31 Id.

32 See, Rivera et al., v. Nibco,

33 For additional post-Hoffman decisions granting plaintiffs’ protective orders, see, Cortez v. Medina’s Landscaping, 2002 WL

31175471 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2002); Flores v. Amigon d/b/a La Flor Bakery, 02 CV 838 (SJ) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2002); and De La
Rosa v. Northern Harvest Furniture, 2002 WL 31007752 (Sept. 4, 2002).
34 See, Valadez v. El Aguila Taco Shop, No. GIC 781170 (San Diego, Cal. Superior Ct. 2002) (holding that Hoffman does notaffect an undocumented worker’s right to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code).
35 See, Vasquez v. Eagle Alloy, Ct. Appeals No. 23592 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).

Impact of Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB Ÿ NELP & NILC Ÿ Page 7

Strong arguments can be made that states are free to make their own policy choices under state laws
regarding what remedies are available to undocumented workers. This presents an opportunity for
advocates to work with their state administrative agencies to develop generous state policies that provide
all workers—regardless of immigration status—with the same rights and remedies and prevent a worker’s
immigration status from being disclosed. Efforts at both the federal and state levels to pass legislation
which addresses the Supreme Court’s Hoffman decision are also critical. At the federal level advocates
hope to introduce legislation (which has already been drafted) in the next congressional session as a
bipartisan bill to turn back the Hoffman decision. A federal bill would basically provide that all employees,
regardless of immigration status or whether they used false documents, are entitled to the same rights andremedies under all employment and labor statutes. At the state level, advocates have begun exploring
possible state legislation, such as SB 1818 in California, which Governor Davis singed into law on
September 29, 2002.36 The National Employment Law Project (NELP) and National Immigration Law
Center (NILC) are developing and will soon release model statements for advocates and organizers to use
with their administrative agencies.
Finally, although the Hoffman decision has served as another anti-union and anti-immigrant tool for
unscrupulous employers, it also presents us with an incredible opportunity to build strong alliances amonglabor unions, immigrant rights groups, community-based organizations, faith-based coalitions, and businessallies who understand that denying back pay to undocumented workers actually creates greater economic
incentive for abusive employers to hire and further exploit vulnerable workers, who work hard to support
their families and pay taxes. Building and sustaining these alliances are critical to addressing the mid- tolong-term goal of achieving legalization for immigrant workers, which recognizes their contributions, andrepealing employer sanctions. These sanctions have criminalized workers, forcing immigrants like Jose
Castro to purchase false documents as a means of survival, while employers like Hoffman Plastic
Compounds use the immigration laws to bust unions and prevent all employees from improving theirworkplace conditions.

36 The law amends the Civil, Government, Health and Safety and Labor Codes and makes declarations of existing law.

Itreaffirms that “[a]ll protections, rights, and remedies available under state law, except any reinstatement remedy prohibited byfederal law, are available to all individuals regardless of immigration status who have applied for employment who are or who
have been employed, in this state." Additionally, the law states that for purposes of enforcing state labor, employment, civilrights, and employee housing laws, "a person’s immigration status is irrelevant to the issue of liability, and in proceedings or
discovery undertaken to enforce those state laws no inquiry shall be permitted into a person’s immigration status except where
the person seeking to make this inquiry has shown by clear and convincing evidence that this inquiry is necessary in order tocomply with federal immigration law." See, CAL. CIV. CODE § 3339 (2002); CAL. GOV’T CODE § 7285, et seq. (2002); CAL. HEALTH& SAFETY CODE § 24000, et seq. (2002); CAL. LAB. CODE § 1171.5 (2002).