Janitors Reinstated by Appeals Court
| More news stories on Immigration Law |
|---|
Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, June17, 2008
A federal appeals court ordered reinstatement Monday for 33 janitors in Los Angeles who were fired because their Social Security numbers did not match the government’s database, a ruling that could strengthen unions’ case against a Bush administration proposal to pressure employers to get rid of suspected illegal immigrants.
The decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco did not address the legality of the administration’s so-called no-match rule, which a federal judge blocked in October. That rule would threaten employers with civil fines and criminal prosecution unless they fired workers who failed to clear up discrepancies between their Social Security numbers and government records.
But in ordering the Los Angeles janitors rehired with back pay, the court said employees can’t be fired merely because the Social Security number they submit differs from the number in the government’s files—a major issue in lawsuits over the administration’s plan.
A Social Security number discrepancy “does not automatically mean that an employee is undocumented,” the court said. It was the first federal appeals court in the nation to rule on no-match letters.
The janitors worked for Aramark Facility Services at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. After receiving government letters in 2003 saying 48 employees’ Social Security numbers did not match the federal database, the company gave the employees three days to clear up the problem. Fifteen did so, and the other 33 were fired.
The employees, whose union contract protected them from being fired without good cause, won reinstatement and back pay from an arbitrator, who said Aramark had no convincing information that they were illegal immigrants. A federal judge disagreed but was overruled Monday by the three-judge appellate panel.
{snip}
The ruling was written by Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall, one of the most conservative jurists on the Ninth Circuit court. {snip}
An employer who receives one of the millions of no-match letters mailed annually by the Social Security Administration must stop crediting the employee’s earnings for Social Security benefits, but until now such employers have not faced punishment for retaining the worker. That would change under the administration’s proposed rule.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco issued an injunction against the rule in October in response to lawsuits from unions and business groups. Breyer said the proposal would harm innocent workers and employers and that serious questions had been raised about its legality.
{snip}
Read the ruling
The appeals court’s ruling in Aramark Facility Services vs. Service Employees International Union can be read at:
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf
Email Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
(Posted on June 17, 2008)
Comments
History will show that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the ACLU, and the SPLC did more damage to this country than the executive branch has ever done.
Posted by Superman at 5:51 PM on June 17
Increasingly, the US is going to become separated into those states/municipalities that tolerate this and those that don’t.
Posted by at 7:04 PM on June 17
The 9th Circus should be disbanded and tried for treason against the U.S.
By the way, this is a typical example of “liberal” duplicity.
On one occasion they will claim that the border and the immigrtation laws must not be enforced because it would be inhumane and violate the illegal aliens’ “civil rights”, so the only way to stop the mass illegal immigration is to stop hiring illegal aliens.
On another occasion, it turns that not hiring or firing illegal aliens based on their lack of work authorization (or fradulently obtained one) is not an option either because that would harm “innocent” workers.
I can’t think of any better characterization of what “liberalism” is.
If you want more of activist “liberal” judges that derail any meaningful immigration enforcement then, by all means, vote Democrat in comming elections.
I, for one, will hold my nose and vote for McCain. (I hope I will not throw up while in voting booth.)
Posted by A Reader at 7:39 PM on June 17
If you want more of activist “liberal” judges that derail any meaningful immigration enforcement then, by all means, vote Democrat in comming elections. I, for one, will hold my nose and vote for McCain. (I hope I will not throw up while in voting booth.)
McCain’s continued degrading of the Republican “brand name” will only make matters worse. McCain has said he will make “comprehensive immigration reform” a priority in 2009 if he is elected. I can stomach 4 years of Obama if it means we get a more conservative Congress in 2010. But the GOP can’t bear to lose congressional seats 3 elections in a row (2006, 2008, 2010), which they will do if we have McCain to keep serving up New Coke to the nation. Open borders is an economic disaster. Look to the last 6 years of the so-called “economic boom” if you’re not convinced of that. If McCain’s in office while we continue to impoverish the working class and turn their neighborhoods into third world hellholes then even more people will turn to the leftist alternative. Americans need to learn that the leftist response to the current crisis is as much destined to failure as the neoconservative one.
And if two years of Obama’s mismanagement doesn’t cause this country to hand the Congress back to the (hopefully reformed) GOP? Well then this country is really screwed, and it’s all over anyway.
Posted by Alan at 11:17 PM on June 17
The Ninth Circuit Court is notorious. It is filled with Marxist judges. So unfortunately this ruling came as no surprise.
The only adults with invalid social security numbers are illegal immigrants or criminals on the lam with fake id. So there’s nothing “suspected” about them. We know they’re illegals.
I hope this gets appealed to the Supreme Court and gets heard before Obama gets to pack it with Ninth Circuit Court clones.
Posted by WR the elder at 12:57 AM on June 18
Being a California native, a can attest to the fact, that one would be hard pressed to think of a court that has done more damage to the U.S. than the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Posted by Bobby at 5:39 AM on June 18
Whomever is elected President this year will most likely have an opportunity to stack the Supreme Court for the rest of our lives in a manner to their liking.
How does knowing that feel?
Posted by Unemployed WASP at 12:33 PM on June 18
To Alan who posted at 11:17 PM on June 17
Four years of Obama may cause damage that is so irreparable that may not be undone easily even if the vast majority of voters turn Republican (or third party) afterwards (which I strongly doubt will be the case).
At least McCain is not likely to replace Supreme Judge Ruth Ginsburg with another Ginsburg.
I can sense some hopes among the audience here that the worse the better strategy (elect Obama) will open the eyes of the American public on lies of left-liberal political agenda. From what I’ve seen so far, it’s a risky gamble that may well be the last nail in America’s coffin.
Just take “W” Bush for example and his sorry immigration record. Does anyone at his right mind think that we would be better off if globalist Gore moved into the Oval Office in 2000? Or that the voters would be so outraged with Gore’s intellectual capabilities that most of them would turn Republican? Can you imagine how difficult it would be to regain the sovereignty lost to Gore’s openly globalist agenda?
As I said, I will hold my nose, trying not to throw up, and will vote on McCain. What a sorry choice, indeed.
I call it damage control.
Posted by A Reader at 12:54 PM on June 18
Yes, The 9th Circus should be disbanded and tried for treason against the U.S. Where are all the greedy lawyers that are like flies on honey as soon as someone pours hot coffee on themselves. Why do they remain silent when our country is under attack? Why doesn’t Aramark make a stink?
Posted by at 3:44 PM on June 18
Agree with previous statement: where are the attorneys that could prosecute those who are betraying our nation??? The USA is ruled by attorneys. I think they need to take a look at themselves and what damage they allow to continue without challenge. Maybe prosecution and defense attorneys running the nation really are “all about the money”. Being schooled in language, I thought they could understand the Constitution includes abstract values for which there is no price. There is NO representation of the People; only attorneys. V
Posted by at 2:20 AM on June 19