Collins Foods International, Inc. v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
91 Daily Journal DAR 13296, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8645, 948 F.2d 549 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer lacks constructive knowledge of an employee's unauthorized status when it offers employment before verifying documents and fails to compare a presented document to examples in an INS handbook, as these actions do not amount to the willful blindness required for liability under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A).
Facts:
- Ricardo Soto Gomez, an employee of Collins Foods International at a Sizzler Restaurant in Phoenix, extended a job offer to Armando Rodriguez via a long-distance telephone call.
- At the time of the offer, Rodriguez was working for another Sizzler in California and did not indicate he was unauthorized to work in the United States.
- When Rodriguez reported for his first day of work in Phoenix, Soto asked for his work authorization documents.
- Rodriguez initially stated he did not have the documents with him, and Soto sent him away, instructing him to return with them before he could begin working.
- Rodriguez later returned with a driver's license and a document that appeared to be a Social Security card.
- Soto inspected the face of both documents, copied the information onto a Form I-9, and then allowed Rodriguez to commence employment.
- Soto did not look at the back of the Social Security card or compare it to an example in the INS handbook.
- It was later discovered that Rodriguez was an unauthorized alien and his Social Security card was a forgery.
Procedural Posture:
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) charged Collins Foods International with violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(l)(A) for knowingly hiring an unauthorized alien.
- The INS issued a Notice of Intent to Fine against Collins Foods.
- Collins Foods requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which is a court of first instance within the administrative agency.
- The ALJ ruled against Collins Foods, finding it had 'constructive knowledge' of the employee's unauthorized status and was therefore subject to a civil penalty.
- The ALJ's decision became the final agency action.
- Collins Foods (appellant) appealed the ALJ's final order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer have constructive knowledge of an employee's unauthorized status under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(l)(A) when it offers employment before seeing verification documents and fails to compare the back of a presented Social Security card with an example in the INS handbook?
Opinions:
Majority - Canby, Circuit Judge
No. The employer’s actions did not establish constructive knowledge of the employee's unauthorized status. First, offering a job before verifying documents is not prohibited by statute and is, in fact, contemplated by regulations, which define 'hiring' as the actual commencement of employment. Forcing employers to verify documents before an offer could lead to discrimination claims under Title VII, putting them in an untenable position. Second, the statute only requires an employer to accept documents that 'reasonably appear on their face to be genuine.' It does not require employers to be forensic document experts, compare documents to handbook examples, or inspect the back of cards. The legislative history of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) confirms Congress's intent to minimize the burden on employers. Constructive knowledge requires a much higher standard, akin to 'willful blindness' where an employer is given positive information of a likely violation (e.g., from the INS) and consciously avoids learning the truth, which was not present here.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the 'constructive knowledge' standard for employer sanctions under IRCA. It establishes that mere negligence or failure to follow best practices in the document verification process is insufficient to prove that an employer 'knowingly' hired an unauthorized worker. By distinguishing this case from prior ones involving direct INS notification, the court protects employers from liability for minor procedural oversights and reinforces the legislative balance between preventing illegal immigration and avoiding employment discrimination against authorized workers.
