Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB
| Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued January 15, 2002 Decided March 27, 2002 |
||||||
| Full case name | Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Incorporated, Petitioner v. National Labor Relations Board | |||||
| Citations | 535 U.S. 137 (more) 122 S. Ct. 1275; 152 L. Ed. 2d 271; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 2147; 70 U.S.L.W. 4209; 145 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11,230; 169 L.R.R.M. 2769; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2731; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 3304; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 178 |
|||||
| Prior history | On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| The Court denied an award of back pay to an undocumented worker who had been laid-off for his part in a union organizing drive. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas | |||||
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg | |||||
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which denied an award of back pay to an undocumented worker who had been laid-off for his part in a union organizing drive. The NLRB found that the layoff of this worker violated National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") section 8(a) (3) regarding the unlawful firing of union supporters. The worker in question had not only entered the United States illegally but also used another person's identity while working for the Company. Hoffman at 139 Thus the issue of using fraudulent documentation for work purposes was separate action of illegality which undermines the undocumented worker from being eligible to obtain such back pay award. Hoffman at 147 The Court focused on the provisions of Immigration Reform and Control act of 1985("IRCA") that penalizes not only acts of undocumented workers but provides significant penalties to companies who knowingly employ such persons. The Supreme Court shunned the use of punitive provisions under the NLRA against an employer which would benefit any person who knowingly broke U.S. Immigration laws. The dissent written by Justice Ginsburg expressed concern that employers would use the lack of immigration status of an employee to relieve themselves of responsibility under the NLRA.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, dissented.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
|
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
