Thread: CA: Appeals court sides with workers suspected of being ille

Strange day for court rulings.
~~

Appeals court sides with workers suspected of being illegal immigrants
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, June 16, 2008

(06-16) 17:55 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court ordered reinstatement Monday for 33 janitors in Los Angeles who were fired because their Social Security numbers did not match the government's database, a ruling that could strengthen unions' case against a Bush administration proposal to pressure employers to get rid of suspected illegal immigrants.

The decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco did not address the legality of the administration's so-called no-match rule, which a federal judge blocked in October. That rule would threaten employers with civil fines and criminal prosecution unless they fired workers who failed to clear up discrepancies between their Social Security numbers and government records.

But in ordering the Los Angeles janitors rehired with back pay, the court said employees can't be fired merely because the Social Security number they submit differs from the number in the government's files - a major issue in lawsuits over the administration's plan.

A Social Security number discrepancy "does not automatically mean that an employee is undocumented," the court said. It was the first federal appeals court in the nation to rule on no-match letters.

The janitors worked for Aramark Facility Services at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. After receiving government letters in 2003 saying 48 employees' Social Security numbers did not match the federal database, the company gave the employees three days to clear up the problem. Fifteen did so, and the other 33 were fired.

The employees, whose union contract protected them from being fired without good cause, won reinstatement and back pay from an arbitrator, who said Aramark had no convincing information that they were illegal immigrants. A federal judge disagreed but was overruled Monday by the three-judge appellate panel.

The court noted that federal law penalizes employers only if they knowingly employ illegal immigrants. The government can try to prove that an employer must have known about the employee's status, but it needs more evidence than a mismatch in the Social Security database, which was not designed for immigration enforcement, the court said.

Of the 430 million entries in the database, the government estimates that 17.8 million contain mistakes, including 3.3 million that classify foreign-born U.S. citizens as aliens, the court said. Among the reasons for mistakes, it said, are typographical errors, confusion about changed or foreign names, and inaccurate employer records.

Aramark gave the janitors only a few days to clear up the discrepancies, and the workers may have failed, or given up, for reasons unrelated to their immigration status, the court said.

The ruling was written by Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall, one of the most conservative jurists on the Ninth Circuit court. She noted that Aramark's three-day deadline for employees was much shorter than the timetable in the Bush administration's proposal, which would give companies 93 days to obtain a matching Social Security number from an employee before facing penalties for knowingly employing an illegal immigrant.

The court did not say, however, whether even a longer timetable would justify penalizing employers who failed to clear up no-match letters. Monica Guizar, an attorney who filed arguments on behalf of the National Immigration Law Center, said the court's conclusion that the letters were dubious evidence of immigration status could invalidate the administration's plan.

The ban on knowingly employing illegal immigrants has been on the books since 1986, but the government has seldom enforced it. Companies are generally able to comply by obtaining identification papers from new employees that document their immigration status.

An employer who receives one of the millions of no-match letters mailed annually by the Social Security Administration must stop crediting the employee's earnings for Social Security benefits, but until now such employers have not faced punishment for retaining the worker. That would change under the administration's proposed rule.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco issued an injunction against the rule in October in response to lawsuits from unions and business groups. Breyer said the proposal would harm innocent workers and employers and that serious questions had been raised about its legality.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a revised rule in March that contained new explanations but virtually no change in content from the previous proposal. The department plans to submit the new rule to Breyer with a request to lift his injunction.



Read the ruling
The appeals court's ruling in Aramark Facility Services vs. Service Employees International Union can be read online at:


www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf

www.sfgate.com

The judicial assault by liberal judges continues. This on top of the Supreme Court ruling easing rules on visa overstayers today, as well as the Idaho Supreme Court ruling that IAs are "residents."

The janitors worked for Aramark Facility Services at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. After receiving government letters in 2003 saying 48 employees' Social Security numbers did not match the federal database, the company gave the employees three days to clear up the problem. Fifteen did so, and the other 33 were fired.

Fifteen were able to resolve the problem within three days. What's the excuse for the remainder of those who couldn't resolve their issues. Could it be they were illegal and couldn't possibly resolve the issue even if they were given a million days?

Did they ask their employer for more time? Were they in communication with their employer or did they run, crying to a pro-illegal invader lawyer claiming they were being discriminated against.

Whatever! I guess I could read the opinion for myself but I want to be able to sleep tonight - so i'm going to pass for now.

You know it's getting bad when illegals are brazen enough to file lawsuits and actually prevail. So much for living in the "shadows."

Another %^%& decision by the 9th circuit....

Originally Posted by Populist

The judicial assault by liberal judges continues. This on top of the Supreme Court ruling easing rules on visa overstayers today, as well as the Idaho Supreme Court ruling that IAs are "residents."

Well said Populist! It's been a rough day. I will leave it at that...

I can only hope those whose SS#'s have been stolen and used by IA's will use this judges ruling to SUE for damages.

If this judge thinks it is just dandy IA's are stealing and using our identities then she has opened the door for major lawsuits.

Judge it is illegal to steal someones identity where is your head..........yeah I know where her head is....

Stolen forms of government documents is a serious crisis

There doesn't seem to be much concern by Law enforcers, this Administration, Congress or Judges when it comes to stolen SS#â€

[quote="HOTCBNS"]Stolen forms of government documents is a serious crisis

There doesn't seem to be much concern by Law enforcers, this Administration, Congress or Judges when it comes to stolen SS#â€

Thanks Judy

I assume this will go to the Supreme Court too.

This is already happening in Utah:


"The worst state of affairs will come forward when our children and babies grow up and apply for credit, jobs, school loans or scholarships and find out they can't get such, because they are a credit risk, charged with fraud, a tax evader or a criminal because their SS# and ID was stolen and used, sometimes for a 100 people around the country. "

Over 10,000 children's SSN's have been stolen. The kids don't know about it until they try and get loans for college. The are prosecuting the ones the find and most are illegals.

I'm convinced that until the good people of the country march by the tens of thousands at the capitol NOTHING will happen. We need a march right up to the steps of the capitol and say enough is enough and if you don't stop it we quit paying our taxes. PERIOD.

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-3282--0-0.html