Jose Reyes, Francisco
Reyes, Jose Perez, and Carlos Flores worked as welders for contractor Van Elk,
Ltd., in
They sued Van Elk for not paying them prevailing wages on public works projects
that were subject to
prevailing wage rules.
Van Elk asked the court
to throw out the case because the employees were undocumented workers and thus
not allowed under federal immigration law and policy to sue for unpaid wages.
(Note that there was no evidence that the workers presented false documents to
obtain employment.) Van Elk argued that the federal immigration law superseded
a
all labor and employment protections, regardless of immigration status.
Van Elk pointed to the
federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which imposes fines and
penalties on employees and employers who violate the employment verification
system, which is designed to deny employment to aliens who either aren’t
legally present in the country or aren’t authorized to work here.
Van Elk also relied on a
recent U.S. Supreme Court decision—Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v.
National Labor Relations Board—holding that undocumented workers could not
recover back pay in actions under the National Labor Relations Act. The court
reasoned that such awards would run counter to IRCA because they were for “years
of work not performed, for wages that could not lawfully have been earned, and
for a job obtained in the first instance by criminal fraud.”
The HR Management & Compliance Report: How To Comply with California Wage & Hour Law, explains everything you need to know to stay in compliance with the state’s complex and ever-changing rules, laws, and regulations in this area. Coverage on bonuses, meal and rest breaks, overtime, alternative workweeks, final paychecks, and more.
Labor Protections
Prevail
But a
disagreed with Van Elk, ruling that the employees’ suit for unpaid prevailing
wages may proceed.1
The court explained that
public policy favors vigorous enforcement of minimum labor standards— including
prevailing wage requirements—to ensure that workers aren’t required to work
under substandard labor conditions, as well as to protect employers who comply
with the law from those who might gain an unfair competitive advantage by
paying lower wages. And, a
law specifies that these protections are available to all workers, regardless
of immigration status.
The court explained that
IRCA did not preempt or otherwise conflict with
for undocumented workers. For example, the Supreme Court’s Hoffman ruling
didn’t preclude an undocumented worker’s claim for wages already earned; that
decision was aimed at back pay awards for work not actually performed, such as
when the employee was wrongfully terminated. And another federal court
concluded that Hoffman didn’t bar undocumented workers from obtaining
relief under federal wage and hour law for work already performed.
What’s more, said the
court, IRCA doesn’t preempt
prevailing wage law—even as applied to undocumented aliens. That’s because the
prevailing wage law actually removes a major incentive to hiring undocumented
workers—without that law in place, employers might be encouraged to hire aliens
with the hopes of paying them less than the minimum wage. The case will now
return to the trial court, where the employees will have an opportunity to
prove their unpaid wage claims.
Impact of Decision
This ruling makes clear
that here in
an employer can’t hire an undocumented worker, refuse to pay the person
according to the state’s wage and hour rules, and then use immigration status
as a defense to nonpayment. Note, however, that the court did not decide the
issue of whether the
labor protections would prevail over immigration standards if an undocumented
worker obtained employment by submitting false work authorization documents.
_
1 Reyes v. Van Elk Ltd.,
(Dist. 2) No. B182068, 2007