What's New at LAS-ELC

Work-Authorized Immigrant Employee Reinstated After 'Document Abuse' Firing

SAN FRANCISCO, CA (April 17, 2008) The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center (LAS-ELC) today announced the successful resolution of an immigration-related discrimination charge filed on behalf of a Target employee, Edna Edelmira Mejia. Although she was fully authorized to work in the U.S. and had been employed at a Target store in Colma, CA since 2002, Ms. Mejia was fired last September when her valid documentation was rejected by store management.

The settlement of Ms. Mejia's charge is "an example of how responsible businesses should address problems that arise when immigration laws are misapplied," said Carole Vigne, an LAS-ELC attorney who represented Ms. Mejia in the case. "Especially at a time when immigrants are coming under increasing scrutiny by the government and by employers, Target's actions can serve as a model for other companies that wish to comply with the immigration laws in a humane and legally sound manner."

Ms. Mejia, a 41-year old Salvadoran immigrant and single mother of two, had worked for Target at its Colma store since 2002. Having been granted "temporary protected status," which she regularly renewed without incident, she was fully authorized to work in the U.S. In September 2007, however, she was terminated because her work authorization card bore a September 2007 expiration date, even though she showed store managers a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services advisory stating that the employment eligibility of all Salvadoran TPS holders had been automatically extended until March 2008.

The LAS-ELC subsequently filed charges with the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) of the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of Ms.Mejia. However, as soon as Ms. Mejia's termination had been brought to the attention of the appropriate Target personnel, Target immediately offered to reinstate her. She accepted the reinstatement, and with it Target restored her to full seniority and provided her with retroactive health insurance. Target also paid Ms. Mejia wages covering the entire period she was unemployed.

"I am happy that Target recognized that a mistake had occurred and took action to reverse what had been done," said Ms. Mejia. "Target has been fair with me."

Ms. Vigne pointed out that employers that demand more or different proof of work authorization from employees than is required by the law are committing "document abuse" and violating the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). Document abuse charges filed by workers with the OSC may trigger an investigation into the employer's employment eligibility verification practices, and could result in the award of reinstatement and backpay to the employee, in addition to monetary fines and other penalties, she noted.

For more information about whether an employer has engaged in document abuse and what the rights of employees are, please see the Document Abuse Fact Sheet available at http://www.las-elc.org/documentabuseENG00086545.PDF (also in Spanish at http://www.las-elc.org/newspanfacts/00086543-2.PDF, and in Chinese at http://www.las-elc.org/documentabuseCHN00086544.PDF).

Click here for the Spanish press release.
Click here for the Chinese press release.
Click here to read more about the case.

Live-in Domestic Worker Charges Wealthy Peninsula Couple with Illegal Employment Practices

Domestic workers march on mansion-lined streets to spotlight case
and protest abusive conditions

(SAN FRANCISCO, CA, March 13, 2008) For four long years, Vilma Serralta worked up to seven days a week and typically more than 14 hours a day while being paid sub-minimum-wages, without meal or rest breaks or overtime, as a live-in domestic worker for a couple in Atherton, an affluent community south of San Francisco. The couple, Sakhawat and Roomy Khan, paid Ms. Serralta to maintain their home, recently priced at $17.9 million, and entrusted her with the care of their young child. Frequently subjected to verbal abuse, Ms. Serralta's ordeal was capped the morning Mr. Khan found a few chicken bones in an otherwise empty trashcan, and summarily fired her on the spot. Today, Ms. Serralta filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of California that seeks wages, damages, and penalties from the KhanÕs in excess of $120,000. The suit was brought on Ms. Serralta's behalf by the Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center (LAS - ELC) and La Raza Centro Legal. To support her case and bring attention to the frequent abusive treatment of domestic workers, community organizers and workers' rights groups planned a protest march today through the streets of Atherton.

"Ms. Serralta is not only bringing suit because she was cheated out of her hard-earned wages, but also to bring attention to the estimated 1.5 million domestic workers in this country who are indispensable to the lives of many American families and yet are often subjected to appalling working conditions," said Christina Chung, staff attorney at the LAS - ELC. "She wants other domestic workers to know they are not alone - that they can stand up and fight for their rights and demand to be treated with dignity and respect."

Ms. Serralta's lawsuit charges that her employers violated the law by denying her minimum, overtime, and double time wages, and by failing to provide meal and rest breaks and to keep accurate payroll records. Ms. Serralta typically worked 13 out of every 14 days, an average of 87.5 hours per week. Despite her long hours, Ms. Serralta was paid a fixed monthly salary ranging from $1,000 to $1,300, regardless of how many hours she had worked. This translated into hourly rates of less than $3.00 and $4.00 per hour - well below the California minimum wage of $6.75 per hour - with no overtime. The Khans also regularly subjected her to verbal abuse.

The vast majority of Ms. Serralta's work hours involved a heavy schedule of cleaning the couple's sprawling estate, assisting in meal preparation, and serving the Khans and their frequent houseguests. Though most of her work hours were devoted to demanding housekeeping duties, Ms. Serralta also cared for the coupleÕs young child.

"I worked very hard for the family, and cared for their daughter like she was my own," said Ms. Serralta. "I do not want revenge. I simply want justice. And I do not want anyone else to go through what I did."

Like many domestic workers, Ms. Serralta's situation was exacerbated by her isolation and lack of knowledge of her legal rights. Her access to outside help was further hampered by her extremely long working hours in the KhanÕs home.

The "behind closed doors" nature of domestic employment, where 9% of workers reported being assaulted on the job, frequently gives rise to employer abuses. In a 2007 report* on Bay Area domestic workers, 90% of respondents reported they worked overtime although they did not receive overtime pay, 83% did not receive paid work breaks, and 20% reported being insulted or threatened within the previous two months. Most employers have little difficulty escaping the scrutiny of labor law enforcement agencies.

"Ms. Serralta's case is typical of abuse happening in wealthy neighborhoods across the country," said co-counsel Hillary Ronen, Coordinator of the Worker's Advocacy Project at La Raza Centro Legal. "However, domestic workers are organizing, learning about their rights, creating organizations, supporting one another, and fighting back. In fact, last year the National Domestic Worker Alliance formed to improve conditions in the domestic worker industry throughout the country."

Today's neighborhood march in Atherton in support of domestic workers and Ms. Serralta's case has been organized by the Women's Collective of La Raza Centro Legal, Mujeres Unidas y Activas, People Organized to Win Employment Rights, and Filipinos for Affirmative Action.

*"Behind Closed Doors: Working Conditions of California Household Workers" (March 2007) may be accessed at http://datacenter.org/reports/behindcloseddoors.pdf). For more information about the rights and organizing of domestic workers, contact Jill Shenker, Coordinator of the Women's Collective of La Raza Centro Legal, (415) 225-5685 or jill@lrcl.org.

Link to complaint

LAS-ELC Case Charges Target and Whole Foods Market with Discriminating Against Authorized
Immigrant Workers

Two Latina Immigrant Workers Fall Victim to Over-Scrutiny of Work Papers

SAN FRANCISCO, CA, November 14, 2007 - The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center (LAS-ELC) today filed two separate charges against the Target Corporation and Whole Foods Market with the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging that the companies engaged in employment discrimination by illegally firing and suspending, respectively, two immigrant workers, even though they had presented clear evidence of their authorization to work in the United States. The companies' unwarranted over-scrutiny of two Latina immigrants' work authorizations - an unlawful practice known as "document abuse" - led to the termination of a Target employee, who is authorized to work under Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and a 30 day suspension without pay of a Whole Foods Market employee, who is a naturalized United States citizen.

"The charges we are filing today reflect a sharply rising incidence of employer misconduct when it comes to immigrant workers," said Christopher Ho, a Senior Staff Attorney at LAS-ELC. "This is exactly the kind of illegal practice that Congress passed laws to prevent more than 20 years ago. But in today's climate of suspicion and hostility toward immigrants in general, some employers are apparently taking the attitude that nothing is too extreme, not even witch hunts that entrap innocent people."

Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Congress required that all employees show their eligibility to work in the United States by presenting any combination of approved documents specified by law (and listed on the back of the Form I-9) within three days after they are hired. IRCA makes it unlawful for an employer to commit "document abuse" - that is, to ask an employee for "more or different documents" than are required to prove employment authorization, or to reject any permissible combination of documents that the employee supplies. In each of the charges filed today, the employers illegally rejected documents that were entirely satisfactory to prove work authorization, taking adverse actions against the workers in each case.

"The facts could not show more clearly that both Target and Whole Foods Market engaged in classic document abuse, and our clients have suffered the harsh consequences of such illegality," said Carole Vigne, a Skadden Fellow with the LAS-ELC. "When employers engage in document abuse, they take away much more than someone's right to work - our clients have been deprived of their feeling of self-sufficiency, their sense of stability, and their piece of the American dream."

Document Abuse Charge Against Target

Edna Mejia, a 41-year old Salvadoran immigrant and single mother of two, had worked for Target at its Colma store since 2002. In September 2007, however, Target refused to accept her employment authorization document, even though she showed human resources personnel a press release from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services stating that the document did not expire until March 9, 2008.

"I felt very bad when I was terminated, especially because I knew that I have the right to work and that I am a good employee," said Ms. Mejia. "I don't want other workers to go through what I went through, especially the emotional and physical stress of not knowing how I will provide for my children or pay rent, and suffer the difficulty I am having finding new work now too."

Document Abuse Charge Against Whole Foods Market

The second employee, a 39-year-old Mexican immigrant and mother of three who prefers to remain unnamed, was suspended for thirty days from the Whole Foods Market store in Redwood City, where she had worked since 2004. She became a U.S. citizen earlier this year. In late August 2007, for no apparent reason, she was asked to produce additional employment authorization documentation - even though she had already submitted proper and sufficient documentation when she was hired. She was unable to comply with Whole Foods Market's unlawful request for additional documentation, however, since she had sent her immigration documents to the State Department as part of her application for a United States passport. Despite repeatedly explaining her situation, she was precipitously suspended by Whole Foods Market for one month.

The employee commented, "Whole Foods had no reason to look into my work authorization papers. Losing a month's salary hurt my family and me financially and emotionally, I felt frustrated, stressed, and anxious - I even went to the hospital because of the stress. I can't imagine what I would have done if I were a single mother."

The two charges are being filed with the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Under IRCA, OSC will investigate the charges and, if it finds that they are substantiated, may initiate formal proceedings before the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (OCAHO). Employers found to have committed document abuse are subject to a variety of civil penalties and/or cease and desist orders, and wronged employees may be entitled to awards of back pay, reinstatement, and other types of injunctive relief.

For more information about whether an employer has engaged in document abuse and what the rights of employees are, please see the Document Abuse Fact Sheet available at http://www.las-elc.org/documentabusefactsheetenglish00086545-2.PDF (and in Spanish at http://www.las-elc.org/newspanfacts/00086543-2.PDF and in Chinese at http://www.las-elc.org/documentabuseCHN00086544.PDF

Click here for the Spanish press release.
Click here for the Chinese press release.

LAS-ELC Attorney Received Public Service Award
from Stanford Law School

David Larry and Chris

Christopher Ho (right), who received the 2007 Alumni Public Service Award from the John and Terry Levin Center for Public Service and Public Interest Law, with David Doniger (left), recipient of the Center's 2007 National Public Service Award, and Stanford Law School Dean Larry Kramer (center).

The LAS-ELC is proud to announce that Senior Staff Attorney Christopher Ho has received the 2007 Alumni Public Service Award from Stanford Law School's John and Terry Levin Center for Public Service and Public Interest Law. Mr. Ho, who also is Director of the National Origin, Immigration, and Language Rights Program at the LAS-ELC, was recognized for his path-breaking legal advocacy on behalf of workers facing immigration- and language-based discrimination in the workplace. Mr. Ho accepted the recognition at an awards dinner on November 5, 2007 held at the Stanford University campus in Palo Alto, CA. For more on the Alumni Public Service Award, click here.

While at Stanford, Mr. Ho's public interest career developed through his involvement with overseeing the work of the East Palo Alto Community Law Project, and his externship with U.S. District Judge Thelton E. Henderson. After graduating in 1987, Mr. Ho was chosen to be one of the first five beneficiaries of Stanford's innovative public service initiative, LRAP (Loan Repayment Assistance Program). After graduating, Mr. Ho, held the LAS-ELC's Félix Velarde-Muñoz Law Fellowship - one of only a handful of highly competitive post-graduate legal fellowships in the United States at the time. Mr. Ho then spent one year as a Law Fellow at Public Advocates, then returned to the LAS-ELC in 1990. In the following two decades, he has accumulated a remarkable record of litigating precedent-setting cases that have helped to recast the legal landscape for immigrant workers, and has emerged as one of the nation's foremost legal experts on issues of immigration- and language- based discrimination in the workplace.

Mr. Ho received his B.A. cum laude and with Distinction in Political Science from Yale College in 1977, and an A.M. in Government from Harvard University in 1980. He is a former board member of the East Palo Alto Community Law Project, the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Bay Area, and Asians for Job Opportunities in the Bay Area, and is a past chair of the Human Rights Committee of the State Bar of California. He is currently a member of the board of directors of California Rural Legal Assistance and the Windcall Futures Project.