U.S. Supreme Court Allows Immigrant Workers' Rights Case to Clear Another Hurdle

Decision may lessen use of intimidating tactics against immigrants who protest illegal employer practices

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday, March 7, 2005 to review the precedent-setting opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc. The 2004 decision, which sharply limited the ability of employers to undertake invasive and intimidating inquiries into employees' immigration status in the course of workplace rights litigation, thus now stands as controlling law in the nine western United States. Moreover, because Rivera is the only federal appeals court decision to address this discovery issue in light of recent Supreme Court case law, it is expected to have a significant impact upon similar cases brought by immigrant workers nationwide.

Lead plaintiff Martha Rivera, who is now a supervisor in the same manufacturing facility from which she was fired nearly seven years ago by defendant NIBCO, Inc., welcomed the Court's decision. "This is a wonderful victory for all immigrant workers, whether or not they are authorized to work in the United States," she said. "I'm very pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to leave the decision of the Court of Appeals in place, and we now look forward to finally having our case decided fairly and without prejudice."

"We are extremely gratified that the Court has rejected NIBCO's petition for certiorari" , added LAS-ELC Senior Staff Attorney Christopher Ho, lead counsel for the Rivera plaintiffs and their counsel of record in the Supreme Court. "Because this brings closure to the supposed issue of our clients' immigration status -- one we have always known to be irrelevant to the heart of this case -- we look forward very much to finally being able to take our case to trial on its true merits."

Rivera, which was originally filed in U.S. District Court in Fresno, California in October 1999, is a Title VII employment discrimination case on behalf of 23 Latina and Southeast Asian women who were fired from their irrigation manufacturing jobs after not passing a job skills examination given in English, even though they had performed their work well for years and did not need English proficiency to do so. The plaintiffs alleged that by testing and then firing them on this basis, NIBCO had unlawfully discriminated against them because of their national origin and language. Because NIBCO's attorneys attempted to question the plaintiffs regarding their immigration status during the fact-finding stages of the case, however, the plaintiffs were forced to seek -- and received -- a protective order from the district court that barred and otherwise limited NIBCO from pursuing that and related lines of questioning.

Although NIBCO appealed, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the protective order. In a unanimous opinion authored by Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the court stated, "Granting employers the right to inquire into workers' immigration status in cases like this would allow them to raise implicitly the threat of deportation and criminal prosecution every time a worker, documented or undocumented, reports illegal practices or files a Title VII action." The opinion goes on to note that "the chilling effect that the disclosure of plaintiffs' immigration status could have upon their ability to effectuate their rights ... outweighed NIBCO's interest in obtaining the information." NIBCO's subsequent request that the entire Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reconsider and reverse the original panel decision was rejected. NIBCO then filed its ultimately unsuccessful petition for certiorari, or review, with the Supreme Court.

Commented LAS-ELC staff attorney Willie Nguyen, who assisted Ho in the briefing of Rivera before the Supreme Court, "The Court's decision not to revisit the Ninth Circuit's holding in our case should be a powerful sign to immigrant rights advocates around the country that those workers brave enough to step forward in defense of their employment rights can now do so with less apprehension that they will suffer adverse, punitive immigration consequences as a result."

"The Supreme Court's action means that the right of immigrant workers to have an equal ability to enforce their employment rights, free from intimidation, is very much alive and well," added Marielena Hincapie, Director of Programs with the National Immigration Law Center. "This decision tells employers they cannot use inquiries into immigration status as a means of diminishing the rights of all workers. This is an important victory that benefits not only individual workers themselves, but also our strong national interest in vigorously enforcing the federal workplace laws."

The LAS-ELC is celebrating this victory and looking forward to moving towards its February 2006 trial date in the case. Also counsel for the plaintiffs in this case are the Law Offices of Richtel & Smith, the Asian Law Caucus, and Minami, Lew & Tamaki LLP.



back to Media and Publications Archive