Court Opinion

ID: 9439204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 06:25:06.405453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:13.299135
License: Public Domain

GINSBURG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I join Judge Sentelle’s dissent insofar as he demonstrates that in Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 104 S.Ct. 2803, 81 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984), “the Supreme Court has definitively answered the question before us.” Dissent at 652. The court today simply cannot convincingly evade the High Court’s clear statement that “in computing backpay, the employees must be deemed ‘unavailable’ for work (and the accrual of back pay therefore tolled) during any period when they were not lawfully entitled to be present and employed in the United States.” 467 U.S. at 903, 104 S.Ct. 2803.
Because I believe that Sure-Tan is controlling, I do not think it necessary to reach the question whether the Board reasonably reconciled the remedial scheme of the NLRA with the policies embodied in the IRCA.