Undocumented Worker Awarded Backpay

By Bruce E. Buchanan

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, in Torres v. Precision Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:16 – cv -01319-STA (Jan. 27, 2020), held an undocumented worker was not precluded from receiving backpay or other damages due to his discharge for pursuing a worker’s compensation claim. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 did not preempt Tennessee’s worker’s compensation laws for a retaliatory discharge claim.

Retaliatory Discharge

Believe it or not, this case began in 2012 after Torres was discharged by Precision Industries. Torres was employed by Precision for over 1 ½ years, from January 2011 to September 2012. Although Torres was undocumented, Precision claims it did not know this as Torres provided a false Social Security card. However, Precision did not obtain an I-9 form from Torres or any other employees.

On May 17, 2012, Torres injured his back at work and thereafter reported it to management. Management sent Torres to a doctor, who advised him that he needed to off work for the remainder of the week. Thereafter, Torres returned to work without a medical release, which was a company requirement. Torres continued to experience back pain, which he claimed he reported to management. In August, Torres went to his own doctor. However, the company said their worker’s compensation insurance would not pay the medical bill because the company was not aware of any new injury. After Torres retained an attorney concerning the worker’s comp claim and the attorney spoke to the company, Torres was fired by Precision. The reasons given were Torres was a disruptive negative force, who tried to extort money from the company, was not a productive worker and had stolen from the company in the past. The employer’s reasons for discharge proved to be pretextual. Based upon the above facts, the Judge found a retaliatory discharge.

Is an Undocumented Worker Entitled to Backpay?

The next question is whether Torres is entitled to backpay as an undocumented worker. Precision argued IRCA precluded Torre’s recovery of backpay, citing Hoffman Plastics Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002). Torres disagreed and stated Precision’s position would leave undocumented workers vulnerable to “unscrupulous” employers. The Court found it was “unable to discern a clear and manifest intention of Congress to preempt state laws regulating worker’s compensation.”

Preemption?

In a similar case, Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc., 897 N.W.2d (Minn. 2017), the Minnesota Supreme Court found no preemption and stated:

Enforcing labor laws against employers that employ undocumented workers does not stand as an obstacle to the purpose of the federal immigration law. Rather, such enforcement furthers the IRCA’s goal of discouraging employers from hiring unauthorized aliens. If the worker’s compensation anti-retaliation statute does not apply to employers of undocumented workers, then those employers are in a position to save costs, especially in borderline cases in which they can plausibly claim ignorance of an employee’s immigration status until after he or she becomes injured at work

The District Court in the case at bar found:

Tennessee’s common law claim for retaliatory discharge for filing a worker’s compensation claim likewise requires, as discussed supra, that the filing of the worker’s compensation claim to be a substantial factor in the employer’s motivation to terminate the employee. An employer in Tennessee is fully able to both comply with IRCA and refrain from discharging employees in retaliation for filing a worker’s compensation claim. Thus, the Minnesota Supreme Court’s analysis is instructive on the interplay between Plaintiff’s claim for retaliatory discharge and IRCA.

In the case at hand, Defendant did not fire Plaintiff for his undocumented status or for failing to provide proper documentation or for providing falsified documentation. Rather, Defendant fired him within minutes of phone call from his attorney requesting information for his worker’s compensation claim. According to the testimony at trial, Plaintiff’s immigration status did not factor into his termination, as all parties involved testify that they did not know his status.

Therefore, the Court held in favor of Torres, the undocumented worker.

Conclusion

It is expected this litigation will return to the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals. Where it will nobody knows so stay tuned.