Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. Nlrb

Decision Date27 March 2002
Docket NumberNo. 00-1595.,00-1595.
PartiesHOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. <I>v.</I> NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Petitioner hired Jose Castro on the basis of documents appearing to verify his authorization to work in the United States, but laid him and others off after they supported a union-organizing campaign at petitioner's plant. Respondent National Labor Relations Board (Board) found that the layoffs violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and ordered backpay and other relief. At a compliance hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to determine the amount of backpay, Castro testified, inter alia, that he was born in Mexico, that he had never been legally admitted to, or authorized to work in, this country, and that he gained employment with petitioner only after tendering a birth certificate belonging to a friend born in Texas. Based on this testimony, the ALJ found that the Board was precluded from awarding Castro relief by Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S. 883, and by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which makes it unlawful for employers knowingly to hire undocumented workers or for employees to use fraudulent documents to establish employment eligibility. The Board reversed with respect to backpay, citing its precedent holding that the most effective way to further the immigration policies embodied in IRCA is to provide the NLRA's protections and remedies to undocumented workers in the same manner as to other employees. The Court of Appeals denied review and enforced the Board's order.

Held: Federal immigration policy, as expressed by Congress in IRCA, foreclosed the Board from awarding backpay to an undocumented alien who has never been legally authorized to work in the United States. Pp. 142-152.

(a) This Court has consistently set aside the Board's backpay awards to employees found guilty of serious illegal conduct in connection with their employment. See, e. g., Southern S. S. Co. v. NLRB, 316 U. S. 31, 40-47. Since Southern S. S. Co., the Court has never deferred to the Board's remedial preferences where such preferences potentially trench upon federal statutes and policies unrelated to the NLRA. See, e. g., Sure-Tan, supra, in which the Court set aside an award of reinstatement and backpay to undocumented alien workers who were not authorized to reenter this country following their voluntary departure when their employers unlawfully reported them to the Immigration and Naturalization Service in retaliation for union activity. Among other things, the Court there found that the Board's authority with respect to the selection of remedies was limited by federal immigration policy as expressed in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and held that, in order to avoid a potential conflict with the INA with respect to backpay, the employees must be deemed "unavailable" for work (and the accrual of backpay therefore tolled) during any period when they were not "lawfully entitled to be present and employed in the United States." 467 U. S., at 903. This case is controlled by the Southern Steamship line of cases. ABF Freight System, Inc. v. NLRB, 510 U. S. 317, 325, distinguished. Pp. 142-146.

(b) As a matter of plain language, Sure-Tan's express limitation of backpay to documented alien workers forecloses the backpay award to Castro, who was never lawfully entitled to be present or employed in the United States. But the Court need not resolve whether, read in context, Sure-Tan's limitation applies only to aliens who left the United States and thus cannot claim backpay without lawful reentry. The question presented here is better analyzed through a wider lens, focusing on a legal landscape now significantly changed. The Southern S. S. Co. line of cases established that where the Board's chosen remedy trenches upon a federal statute or policy outside the Board's competence to administer, the Board's remedy may have to yield. Whether or not this was the situation at the time of Sure-Tan, it is precisely the situation today. Two years after Sure-Tan, Congress enacted IRCA, a comprehensive scheme that made combating the employment of illegal aliens in the United States central to the policy of immigration law. INS v. National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc., 502 U. S. 183, 194, and n. 8. Among other things, IRCA established an extensive "employment verification system," 8 U. S. C. § 1324a(a)(1), designed to deny employment to aliens who (a) are not lawfully present in the United States, or (b) are not lawfully authorized to work in the United States, § 1324a(h)(3). It also makes it a crime for an unauthorized alien to subvert the employer verification system by tendering fraudulent documents, § 1324c(a), an offense that Castro committed when obtaining employment with petitioner. Thus, allowing the Board to award backpay to illegal aliens would unduly trench upon explicit statutory prohibitions critical to federal immigration policy. It would encourage the successful evasion of apprehension by immigration authorities, condone prior violations of the immigration laws, and encourage future violations. However broad the Board's discretion to fashion remedies when dealing only with the NLRA, it is not so unbounded as to authorize this sort of an award. Lack of authority to award backpay does not mean that the employer gets off scot-free. The Board here has already imposed other significant sanctions against petitioner, including orders that it cease and desist its NLRA violations and conspicuously post a notice detailing employees' rights and its prior unfair practices, which are sufficient to effectuate national labor policy regardless of whether backpay accompanies them, Sure-Tan, supra, at 904, and n. 13. Pp. 146-152.

237 F. 3d 639, reversed.

REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined, post, p. 153.

Ryan D. McCortney argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Maurice Baskin.

Paul R. Q. Wolfson argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Arthur F. Rosenfeld, John H. Ferguson, Norton J. Come, and John Emad Arbab.*

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

The National Labor Relations Board (Board) awarded backpay to an undocumented alien who has never been legally authorized to work in the United States. We hold that such relief is foreclosed by federal immigration policy, as expressed by Congress in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).

Petitioner Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. (petitioner or Hoffman), custom-formulates chemical compounds for businesses that manufacture pharmaceutical, construction, and household products. In May 1988, petitioner hired Jose Castro to operate various blending machines that "mix and cook" the particular formulas per customer order. Before being hired for this position, Castro presented documents that appeared to verify his authorization to work in the United States. In December 1988, the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, began a union-organizing campaign at petitioner's production plant. Castro and several other employees supported the organizing campaign and distributed authorization cards to co-workers. In January 1989, Hoffman laid off Castro and other employees engaged in these organizing activities.

Three years later, in January 1992, respondent Board found that Hoffman unlawfully selected four employees, including Castro, for layoff "in order to rid itself of known union supporters" in violation of § 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).1 306 N. L. R. B. 100. To remedy this violation, the Board ordered that Hoffman (1) cease and desist from further violations of the NLRA, (2) post a detailed notice to its employees regarding the remedial order, and (3) offer reinstatement and backpay to the four affected employees. Id., at 107-108. Hoffman entered into a stipulation with the Board's General Counsel and agreed to abide by the Board's order.

In June 1993, the parties proceeded to a compliance hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to determine the amount of backpay owed to each discriminatee. On the final day of the hearing, Castro testified that he was born in Mexico and that he had never been legally admitted to, or authorized to work in, the United States. 314 N. L. R. B. 683, 685 (1994). He admitted gaining employment with Hoffman only after tendering a birth certificate belonging to a friend who was born in Texas. Ibid. He also admitted that he used this birth certificate to fraudulently obtain a California driver's license and a Social Security card, and to fraudulently obtain employment following his layoff by Hoffman. Ibid. Neither Castro nor the Board's General Counsel offered any evidence that Castro had applied or intended to apply for legal authorization to work in the United States. Ibid. Based on this testimony, the ALJ found the Board precluded from awarding Castro backpay or reinstatement as such relief would be contrary to Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S. 883 (1984), and in conflict with IRCA, which makes it unlawful for employers knowingly to hire undocumented workers or for employees to use fraudulent documents to establish employment eligibility. 314 N. L. R. B., at 685-686.

In September 1998, four years after the ALJ's decision, and nine years after Castro was fired, the Board reversed with respect to backpay. 326 N. L. R. B. 1060. Citing its earlier decision in A. P. R. A. Fuel Oil Buyers Group, Inc., 320 N. L. R. B. 408 (1995), the Board determined that "the most effective way to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
323 cases
  • Owino v. Corecivic, Inc., Case No.: 17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 14 May 2018
    ...out a "comprehensive scheme prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens in the United States." (Id. (quoting Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002)).) Defendant argues that these two statutes reflect a congressional mandate to regulate the detention of unlawf......
  • United States v. Alabama
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 28 September 2011
    ...the employment of illegal aliens central to the policy of immigration law.” Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137, 147, 122 S.Ct. 1275, 152 L.Ed.2d 271(2002) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). 2. The Immigration Reform and Control A......
  • Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 10-CA-038804
    • United States
    • National Labor Relations Board
    • 28 October 2014
    ...claim. [48] Southern Steamship Co. v. NLRB, 316 U.S. 31, 47 (1942)(emphasis added); see also Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002)(“ [W]here the Board's chosen remedy trenches upon a federal statute or policy outside the Board's competence to administer, the Boar......
  • Texas v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 16 July 2021
    ...the employment of illegal aliens.’ " Arizona , 567 U.S. at 404, 132 S.Ct. 2492 (quoting Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB , 535 U.S. 137, 147, 122 S.Ct. 1275, 152 L.Ed.2d 271 (2002) ). Through criminal and civil penalties for employers and civil penalties for employees, IRCA made it "......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • NLRB Continues Attack On Class And Collective Action Waivers
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 24 February 2016
    ...in the NLRB when that agency's remedial preferences trenched on other federal statutes. See Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002) and cases cited It should be noted, however, that a confrontation over this issue might be avoided if a change occurs in the control of th......
  • $22.4 Million FLSA Settlement For Contract Janitors
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 2 March 2005
    ...and undocumented workers alike." Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hoffman Plastics, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), the grocery chains argued that the janitors' status as illegal immigrants was relevant to the lawsuit because it limited back pay lia......
  • Labor & Employment: 2003 California Employment Law Amendments
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 4 June 2003
    ...Legislature has amended various state codes in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002). In that case, the Supreme Court held that federal immigration policy, as expressed by Congress in the Immigration Reform and Control ......
  • California Appeals Court Affirms Employer's Right To Not Hire Possibly Disabled, But Admittedly Dishonest, Applicant
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 23 August 2011
    ...the hiring practice. Consistency in application of employment practices and protocols is paramount in all employment settings. Footnotes 1 535 U.S. 137 2 35 Cal. App. 4th 620 (1995). 3 65 Cal. App. 4th 833 (1988). The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the sub......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
48 books & journal articles
  • Framing and contesting unauthorized work
    • United States
    • Georgetown Immigration Law Journal No. 36-2, January 2022
    • 1 January 2022
    ...excess in tax revenue to the social security trust fund as compared to benef‌its received). 130. Hoffman Plastics Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002). 131. Id. at 151. 668 GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 36:651 In Title VII 132 cases, courts have generally adopted the Cour......
  • Abolishing citizenship: resolving the irreconcilability between 'soil' and 'blood' political membership and anti-racist democracy
    • United States
    • Georgetown Immigration Law Journal No. 36-2, January 2022
    • 1 January 2022
    ...is the notion that citizenship is a permissible criterion for limiting such rights.”). 306. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 151 (2002) (holding that noncitizens without status are not entitled to back pay under federal law). 307. See, e.g. , Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408......
  • Pleading
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases. Volume 1-2 Volume 2 - Practice
    • 1 May 2023
    ...pay awards to undocumented workers who assert violation of the National Labor Relations Act (Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB , 535 U.S. 137, 146-49 (2002)). [§§5:164 - 5:172 Reserved] H. Counterclaims [§5:173] A defendant may also assert counterclaims, seeking affirmative relief aga......
  • Summary Judgment Practice and Procedure
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases. Volume 1-2 Volume 2 - Practice
    • 1 May 2023
    ...to undocumented workers who had never been legally authorized to work in the United States. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. N.L.R.B. , 535 U.S. 137, 122 S. Ct. 1275 (2002). With respect to Title VII and other federal anti-discrimination laws, the law is unsettled. The Supreme Court has n......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT