Opinion ID: 775760
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Labor Exception

Text: 29 The Hobbs Act prohibits, inter alia, interference with commerce by extortion. 18 U.S.C. 1951(a). The Act defines extortion as the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. 18 U.S.C. 1951(b)(2). 30 There is a labor exception to culpability for Hobbs Act extortion. United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396, 401, 35 L. Ed. 2d 379, 93 S. Ct. 1007 (1973). Thus, the Act does not apply to the use of force to achieve legitimate labor ends. Id. Legitimate labor ends include increasing the number of minorities hired by a contractor that the defendant reasonably believes discriminates against minorities. United States v. Taylor, 92 F.3d 1313, 1319 (2d Cir. 1996). However, the use of force for the achievement of illegitimate objectives by employees or their representatives, such as the exaction of personal payoffs, or the pursuit of 'wages' for unwanted or fictitious services, is not exempt from the Act. Enmons, 410 U.S. at 407. Judge Casey used the following language in explaining the difficult concepts underlying the labor exception to the jury: 31 The Hobbs Act, which describes the crime of extortion, does not apply to labor disputes in which workers seek to obtain lawful and legitimate labor objectives. A labor dispute can include good-faith efforts to obtain jobs for minorities from contractors or subcontractors who the defendants reasonably believe discriminate against minorities in hiring employees, or who the defendants reasonably believe failed to obey the law regarding the employment of minorities. 32 This exception does not imply that violence is lawful or proper in general. Obviously, it is not. Therefore, the labor exception to the Hobbs Act does not apply to efforts to obtain jobs from contractors whom the defendants reasonably believed did not discriminate or violate employment laws, or to efforts to obtain money or wages for unwanted or superfluous employees[,] no show-jobs[,] or contracts, or other valuable consideration. 33 Nor does it apply to the charge of using coercive or extortive means in order to force an employer to place a person on his or her payroll solely in exchange for preventing that person or other people or organizations he is associated with from disrupting work. 34 If you find that any defendant engaged in such conduct, then you might find him guilty of extortion, if the other elements of the crime have been proven. 35 The government has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the labor exception does not apply. 36 Just before explaining the labor exception, the court instructed the jury, that force, violence or fear . . . used . . . to obtain property [was] wrongful and that the jury did not need to determine whether the defendants believed the property was legitimately theirs. 37 The defense asked that the court insert the following language in the second paragraph of the labor exception charge immediately after, This exception does not imply that violence is lawful or proper in general. Obviously it is not: 38 Acts of violence are prohibited by other laws. Whether or not such laws have been violated here, however, is irrelevant to the issue that you have to consider. The issue here is whether the defendants have violated this specific statute - the Hobbs Act. 39 A labor dispute, within the labor exception to the Hobbs Act, is a dispute between an employer and an individual employee, a group of employees, a representative of employees or any group of individuals seeking legitimate employment with an employer. The dispute need not involve representatives of recognized labor unions nor need it involve claims of contract violations by the employer. It can include good faith attempts to obtain jobs for minorities from contractors or subcontractors. 40 Although the government did not object to inclusion of this language, the court declined to adopt it. Defendants requested, in the alternative, that the court remove the word, Therefore, immediately after Obviously, it is not and before the labor exception does not apply and begin a new paragraph with The labor exception does not apply. The Court also declined to make this change. 41 We review jury instructions de novo. United States v. Pujana-Mena, 949 F.2d 24, 27 (2d Cir. 1991). To succeed in their challenge, defendants must show that the requested charge accurately represented the law in every respect and that, viewing as a whole the charge actually given, [they were] prejudiced. Id. (emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted). We must also look to the charge as a whole to determine whether it adequately reflected the law and would have conveyed to a reasonable juror the relevant law. United States v. Jones, 30 F.3d 276, 284 (2d Cir. 1994). 42 Defendants' proposed language is legally correct and may have helped the jury better understand the counter-intuitive proposition that the use of violence in a labor dispute does not violate the Hobbs Act. However, the court's charge also was correct. It states that the labor exception applies to efforts to induce the hiring of minorities under certain circumstances but does not allow labor coalitions to coerce the hiring of minorities if the coalition lacks a reasonable belief that the targeted employer discriminated or, under any circumstances, to force the hiring of coalition coordinators for no-show jobs. See Taylor, 92 F.3d at 1319 n.2, 1333 (holding that labor exception does not apply to efforts to obtain coordinator's fees or contracts and noting that the district court made it clear to the jury that the exception did not apply to efforts to obtain jobs from contractors whom defendants reasonably believed did not discriminate or violate employment laws, or to efforts to obtain money, wages for unwanted or superfluous employees, contracts or other valuable consideration). 2 Moreover, a reasonable juror would have understood the court's charge correctly. The district court defined the labor exception immediately after defining the wrongfulness element of the Hobbs Act and stated that the labor exception constituted an exception to this aspect of wrongfulness. The juxtaposition of the two portions of the charge indicates that use of fear in the service of legitimate labor goals including increased hiring of minorities is not wrongful and is within the labor exception.