Home » Employment / Careers Articles » Undocumented Immigrants Entitled to Benefits Under the LHWCA
Undocumented Immigrants Entitled to Benefits Under the LHWCA
The 5th Circuit recently held that an undocumented immigrant could receive workers' comp benefits, sparking controversy over this ongoing immigration reform debate.
June 25, 2010 /Employment - Careers PR News/ -- In Bollinger v. Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs, the Fifth Circuit held that an undocumented immigrant was eligible to receive workers' compensation benefits under the Longshore Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (the LHWCA). With the ongoing debate over immigration reform, the decision will spark some controversy over whether people who are in the country illegally should receive the protections and benefits afforded under state and federal workers' compensation laws.
Facts and Case History
Jorge Rodriguez fell and injured his back while employed by Bollinger. At the time of his injury, Rodriguez was an undocumented alien who used a fake Social Security number to initially obtain employment. Because of this, Bollinger argued that Rodriguez should be precluded from recovering benefits under the LHWCA as he was not eligible for any employment in the United States.
At the administrative hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in Rodriguez's favor on all issues. The ALJ noted that Rodriguez was entitled to benefits under the LHWCA because Bollinger failed to present any evidence that Rodriguez was "about to be deported or would be deported" under the standard presented in Hernandez v. M/V Rajaan. The ALJ also noted that previous courts have declined to take an immigrant's undocumented status into consideration when deciding that person's eligibility for benefits, citing Rivera v. United Masonry.
Bollinger appealed to the Benefits Review Board (BRB), which affirmed the findings of the ALJ. The BRB agreed with the reasoning of the ALJ and also noted that the LHWCA statute itself did not differentiate between individuals based on citizenship status. In other words, the fact that Rodriguez was in the country illegally had no bearing on his ability to receive workers' compensation benefits.
Appeal to the Fifth Circuit
In its appeal to the Fifth Circuit, Bollinger argued that awarding benefits to Rodriguez would be improper because any benefits would be based on illegally obtained wages. According to the company, Rodriguez had no legal capacity to earn wages at the time of his injury.
In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit panel first looked at the language of the LHWCA and its definition of "employee." Under the act, that term refers to "any person engaged in maritime employment, including any longshoreman or other person engaged in longshoring operations." The statute does have several limited exceptions, but the court found no reference to immigration status among those expressly listed.
Similarly, in the Hernandez case relied on by Bollinger, an undocumented worker was injured on the job and sued for benefits under the LHWCA. The court in that case affirmed an award of damages to the plaintiff. Though Hernandez did not directly address the issue (the plaintiff sued as a third party in a tort claim and not under a statute) the court in this case notes that Hernandez "stands for the proposition that undocumented immigrants are eligible to recover workers' compensation benefits under the LHWCA."
LHWCA in Conflict With Immigration Policies?
Bollinger argued that even if the statutory text and prior case law did not prohibit awarding benefits to undocumented immigrants under the LHWCA, that the court must now interpret the LHWCA with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) in mind. The IRCA made it a criminal offense to provide false or fraudulent documents to obtain employment in the United States.
According to the company, Rodriguez should be precluded from receiving benefits based on his violation of this statute, as it would undermine the policies of the IRCA. Bollinger used a long line of National Labor Relations Board cases -- the most recent being Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB -- as authority.
In Hoffman, an illegal worker used fake documentation to obtain employment. The employee was then terminated for union activities and sued for back pay under the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB awarded back pay to the worker, citing that remedy as the best way to further the goals of the IRCA. The United States Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that back pay was inappropriate, in part, because it would encourage future violations of the IRCA and condone prior violations of immigration laws and policies. It also noted that by awarding back pay to illegal and undocumented workers would "unduly trench upon explicit statutory prohibitions" that were outlined in the IRCA.
Distinguishing Hoffman Plastics
The court rejected this argument and distinguished the Hoffman line of cases for several reasons. First, the court stated that awarding benefits under the LHWCA was not a discretionary remedy, citing language in the statute that notes benefits "shall be payable under this chapter in respect of disability or death of an employee." This differs from the discretionary back pay awarded under the NLRB cases pointed to by Bollinger. Second, the court noted that the LHWCA was enacted as a substitute for tort claims, meaning that the plaintiff in this case did not have a right to sue at law, but would receive a certain, limited benefit under the LHWCA in exchange for giving up that right. Finally, the court held that the LHWCA expressly provided for the award of benefits to nonresident aliens. The statute explicitly notes that non resident aliens "shall be" entitled to compensation in the same amount as provided for residents.
Continuing Debate on the Issue
Critics of the decision worry about extending workers' compensation to a population here illegally. Others wonder if any other result would have offered employers a way around the protections workers receive under the LHWCA and encourage employers to hire undocumented workers.
With the disagreements surrounding Arizona's new immigration law and the push toward immigration reform around the country, this decision could further enhance the debate, giving both critics and advocates of reform more to consider.
Article provided by Laird, Hammons, Laird PLLC
Visit us at www.okcinjuryattorneys.com/
---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com |
|
|
Press Release Contact Information:
Findlaw PR
|
|
|
|
|
| EMPLOYMENT / CAREERS ARCHIVE SEARCH |
|
|
| |
| SUBMIT EMPLOYMENT / CAREERS NEWS |
|
|
| |
|
|
Advertise With Us |
About Us |
Contact Us