Edwards v. Prime, Inc.
15 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1862, 602 F. Supp. 3d 1276, 602 F.3d 1276 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer engages in a pattern of racketeering activity sufficient to state a RICO claim when it knowingly hires undocumented workers and also provides them with fraudulent documents, such as Social Security numbers, because such actions constitute 'encouraging or inducing' an alien to reside in the U.S. illegally and 'harboring' them from detection under federal immigration law.
Facts:
- Prime, Inc., a franchisee of Ruth's Chris Steak House in Birmingham, Alabama, knowingly hired and employed undocumented immigrants.
- Prime's management provided these workers with the names and Social Security numbers of former U.S. citizen employees to use for their illegal employment.
- To recruit more undocumented workers, Prime's management would ask its current undocumented employees if they knew others interested in working there.
- The restaurant withheld a percentage of servers' tips, with a portion going to 'the house' and the rest to a tip pool that included employees who were not legally eligible to participate in it.
- Managers sometimes persuaded customers to reduce tips they deemed too large or to not tip at all.
- Kyle Edwards, a Caucasian employee, was repeatedly threatened and shunned by his Hispanic and Latino co-workers.
- Edwards complained to management about the hostile environment and about the company's employment of undocumented workers, but management took no effective action.
Procedural Posture:
- Seven former employees sued Prime, Inc., Mark Oswald, and Ruth's Chris Steak House, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
- The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under RICO, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Alabama common law.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss several counts of the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted the motion in part, dismissing with prejudice the RICO claim (Count 1), the state law claims for tortious interference and conversion (Counts 7 and 8), and the § 1981 hostile work environment claim (Count 12).
- The district court certified its dismissal of Counts 1, 7, 8, and 12 as a partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which allows for an immediate appeal of only those claims.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the district court's certified rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; the defendants were the appellees.
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's alleged conduct of knowingly hiring undocumented workers and providing them with names and Social Security numbers of former employees to facilitate their employment constitute a 'pattern of racketeering activity' sufficient to state a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Carnes, Circuit Judge
Yes, an employer's conduct of knowingly hiring undocumented workers and providing them with names and Social Security numbers is sufficient to allege a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. The court found that the plaintiffs successfully pleaded at least two types of predicate acts. First, by providing jobs and, crucially, Social Security numbers, the defendants went beyond 'mere employment' and engaged in 'encouraging or inducing' aliens to reside in the U.S. in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). Citing its precedent in United States v. Ndiaye, the court reasoned that helping an alien fraudulently obtain a Social Security number, which is necessary for employment, is a form of 'help' that encourages them to reside in the country. Second, the court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged the defendants 'concealed, harbored, or shielded from detection' the undocumented workers in violation of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii). The court noted that Congress removed the 'employment exception' from the harboring statute in 1986, indicating an intent for employment to constitute harboring. Providing false documents and paying in cash further supports the allegation of shielding workers from detection. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' other claims. The § 1981 hostile work environment claim failed because the complaint alleged the harassment against Edwards was motivated by his complaints about illegal hiring, not by his race. The state law claim for tortious interference with a business relationship failed because Prime was a party to, not a 'stranger' to, the relationship between its employees and patrons. The conversion claim failed because Alabama law requires the conversion of specific, identifiable money (e.g., a bag of coins), not just an identifiable amount of money, which is what the withheld tips constituted.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and strengthens the ability of plaintiffs to bring civil RICO claims against employers who facilitate the employment of undocumented workers through document fraud. By holding that providing fraudulent Social Security numbers constitutes 'encouraging' and 'harboring' under immigration statutes, the court established a clear path for pleading RICO predicate acts that goes beyond 'mere employment.' This precedent makes it more difficult for such employers to dismiss these claims at an early stage, potentially increasing their legal exposure and the leverage of whistleblowers or aggrieved employees. The opinion also reinforces the strict pleading standards for racial hostile work environment claims, requiring a direct causal link between the harassment and the plaintiff's race, not merely a correlation.
