Torres v. Precision Indus., Inc.

• Citation: 995 F.3d 485
• Decision Date: 22 April 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-5492,20-5492
• Parties: Ricardo TORRES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PRECISION INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

995 F.3d 485

Ricardo TORRES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.PRECISION INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-5492

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Decided and Filed: April 22, 2021

ON BRIEF: James L. Holt, Jr., Paula J. Jackson, JACKSON, SHIELDS, YESIER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant. Steve Wilson, THE STEVE WILSON FIRM, Memphis, Tennessee, Bryce Ashby, DONATI LAW, PLLC, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee. Marisa Díaz, Christopher Ho, LEGAL AID AT WORK, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae.

Before: GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal law makes it illegal to employ undocumented aliens, but Tennessee's workers’ compensation law still protects them. So if a Tennessee company fires an undocumented employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim, the employee can sue for damages. Because of the federal law, the company cannot be required to pay lost wages that the alien was not allowed to earn. But it's still on the hook for wages the employee could have lawfully received, as well as for other damages unrelated to the employee's immigration status.

Ricardo Torres obtained authorization to work in the United States several months after he was fired for filing a workers’ compensation claim. The district court appropriately awarded him backpay for the period in which he was authorized to work, plus non-economic and punitive damages. But the court mistakenly included two extra months’ wages in the backpay calculation. We reduce the damage award accordingly and affirm.

I.

Ricardo Torres worked for Precision Industries from January 2011 until he was fired in September 2012. He was not legally authorized to work in the United States during this period, but he obtained work authorization about five months later. Precision did not learn of Torres's unauthorized status until this litigation. (Torres had listed a fake Social Security number on a tax form when he started the job.)

In May 2012, Torres injured his back at work. He reported the injury to Precision's safety manager, Cheri Norwood, who scheduled a doctor's appointment for later that day. A week later, Torres returned to work—but the pain got worse. Norwood did not schedule a new doctor's appointment, so Torres scheduled his own and presented Precision with the doctor's bill.

Precision wouldn't pay, so Torres hired a lawyer to pursue a workers’ compensation claim. When the lawyer contacted Precision, Norwood said that Torres's claim was closed and ended the call. Immediately after, Norwood and Torres's supervisor, Craig Momberger, confronted Torres. Torres recorded the conversation. On the recording, Norwood threatened to "knock the hell out of" Torres. And in a profanity-laced diatribe, Momberger added:

I don't even get why the f---ing lawyer's involved. Why? You trying to do something? ... You think that we have to pay for that[?] ... I'm going to show you a lot of g-ddamn loyalty if that's the way you f---ing do things[.] ... When Terry [Hedrick] finds out about this s---, you're in a world of hurt.

After the conversation, Momberger called Terry Hedrick, the company's president and owner. Momberger said that Torres's actions "had strong implications against the company" and recommended that Hedrick fire Torres. Hedrick agreed, and Momberger fired Torres right afterwards. Hedrick didn't know that Torres had hired an attorney to pursue a workers’ compensation claim.

Torres sued. He claims Precision violated Tennessee law by firing him in retaliation for making a workers’ compensation claim.

The district court conducted a bench trial. After Torres presented his evidence, Precision moved for judgment on partial findings, contending that Torres was not entitled to recover backpay or non-economic damages. The district court granted the motion. It held that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 precluded Torres's state law retaliation claim.

We reversed. We held the district court erred by deciding the preemption question without first deciding whether Precision was liable and if so, what damages were available under Tennessee law. On remand, the district court found Precision liable for retaliatory discharge and held that federal law did not preempt a damage award. The court awarded Torres backpay, compensatory damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages. Precision appealed.

II.

We first review the district court's liability determination. Precision argues that the evidence does not support the conclusion that it wrongfully terminated Torres under Tennessee law. We disagree.

Tennessee's common law expressly prohibits employers from firing employees for filing workers’ compensation claims. See Williams v. City of Burns , 465 S.W.3d 96, 108–09 (Tenn. 2015) ; Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co. , 677 S.W.2d 441, 444–45 (Tenn. 1984). To make a claim for retaliatory discharge, a former employee must show that his application for workers’ compensation benefits was a "substantial motivating factor" in the employer's decision to end the employment relationship. Sasser v. Averitt Exp., Inc. , 839 S.W.2d 422, 426 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). The district court did not err in concluding that Torres's workers’ compensation claim was a substantial motivating factor in Precision's decision to fire him.

Start with the court's factual conclusion that Momberger acted with retaliatory animus toward Torres. For one thing, the animus is apparent from the audio recording of their conversation. On the recording, Momberger asked Torres: "Why'd you go to a lawyer? You think we have to pay for that?" And he followed up with a threat: "When Terry [Hedrick] finds out about this sh--, you're in a world of hurt." Then he called Hedrick and recommended that Torres be fired. From this evidence, the district court reasonably concluded that Momberger was "very angry that Torres had gotten an attorney and initiated legal proceedings." R. 84, Pg. ID 1381.

And Torres had a stable work history with Precision until this incident. Indeed, Momberger had given him universally high marks on his only performance evaluation. But not one hour after learning that Torres hired a lawyer, Momberger had him fired. The district court found this "swift change in attitude" marked by Momberger's tirade to be further evidence that Torres's workers’ compensation claim was a substantial factor in his termination.

To be sure, Hedrick and Momberger testified that they fired Torres for non-retaliatory reasons. But the district court doubted the credibility of these explanations, in part because their stated reasons for firing Torres had changed substantially over time. See Sasser , 839 S.W.2d at 427. Credibility determinations—especially when made with the benefit of in-person testimony—receive strong deference on appellate review. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , 470 U.S. 564, 575, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). We see no reason to disturb them here, and nothing else in the record suggests that the district court clearly erred in weighing the evidence.

Nor did the district court commit legal error by imputing Momberger's retaliatory animus to Precision—even though the company's ultimate decisionmaker, Terry Hedrick, was unaware of Torres's protected activity. After his conversation with Torres, Momberger immediately called Hedrick and recommended that Torres be fired. And Hedrick accepted Momberger's recommendation without further investigation.

Still, Precision argues that it cannot be liable for Momberger's actions because Tennessee law does not define an employer to include the employer's agents. This argument lacks merit. Tennessee courts routinely hold corporations liable for wrongful discharge based on their agents’ retaliatory animus. See, e.g. , Sasser , 839 S.W.2d at 428 ; Newcomb v. Kohler Co. , 222 S.W.3d 368, 389–95 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). Thus, the district court did not err by relying on agency principles to establish causation.

III.

Having concluded that the district court did not err in its liability determination, we now consider whether federal law preempts the damages award. Although the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 preempts backpay awards for lost wages that an alien was not entitled to receive, it does not preempt backpay for wages that the alien would have lawfully earned. Nor does it preempt compensatory and punitive damage awards unrelated to an employee's immigration status. Thus, we affirm most of the district court's damages award. But because that award includes two months of backpay for a time in which Torres was unauthorized to work in the United States, we reduce the award accordingly.

A.

As in any preemption case, we deal here with an apparent conflict between two separate employment-law-related regulatory regimes, one state and one federal. Our analysis begins with a summary of each.

Tennessee provides a cause of action for retaliatory discharge when an employer fires an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim. See supra , Part II; Clanton , 677 S.W.2d at 444–45. Successful plaintiffs may obtain a variety of remedies, including reinstatement, backpay, damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages. See, e.g. , Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co. , 833 S.W.2d 896, 899–902 (Tenn. 1992). Because Tennessee's workers’ compensation statute defines an "employee" as "every person ... whether lawfully or unlawfully employed," Tennessee courts—including in litigation involving these parties—have reasoned that the statute allows claims by individuals unauthorized to work in the United States. See Tenn. Code. Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A) ; Torres v. Precision Indus. , 2014 WL 3827820, at *5–10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2014).

Tennessee's worker's compensation law is in some tension with the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. IRCA, as it is commonly known, prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized aliens. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. So if an employer discovers that one of its...