Elmer Lucas v. Jerusalem Cafe, LLC
2013 WL 3868144, 721 F. 3d 927 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) protections for minimum and overtime wages extend to unauthorized alien workers, allowing them to sue for unpaid wages for work already performed. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) does not implicitly repeal or limit these FLSA protections.
Facts:
- Between June 2007 and March 2010, Elmer Lucas and five other aliens, who lacked employment authorization, worked at the Jerusalem Cafe.
- The Cafe was owned by Farid Azzeh and managed by Adel Alazzeh.
- The employers paid the workers fixed weekly cash wages that, for some, amounted to less than the federal minimum wage.
- None of the workers received overtime pay, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, with some working as many as 77 hours.
- In January 2010, after worker Feliciano Macario called the police following an altercation, Azzeh offered him $500 to drop the charges, fearing the discovery of his hiring practices.
- Macario was terminated in January 2010 after refusing the offer.
- The other workers were terminated in March 2010 after they refused their employers' request to falsify employment applications to conceal their prior period of employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Elmer Lucas and other workers sued Jerusalem Cafe and its owners in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri for willful violations of the FLSA.
- The district court granted the workers' pre-trial motion in limine to exclude evidence of their immigration status.
- During the jury trial, the order in limine was dissolved by agreement of the parties after a witness mentioned the workers' status.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the workers.
- The district court entered judgment for the workers, awarding unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and legal fees.
- The employers filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing the workers lacked standing to sue.
- The district court denied the employers' motion.
- The employers (appellants) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) permit unauthorized alien workers to sue their employers for unpaid minimum and overtime wages for work they have already performed?
Opinions:
Majority - Riley, Chief Judge
Yes, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) permits unauthorized alien workers to sue for unpaid wages for work already performed. The plain text of the FLSA defines 'employee' as 'any individual employed by an employer,' a deliberately broad definition that includes no exception for unauthorized aliens. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which prohibits hiring unauthorized aliens, does not implicitly repeal or limit the FLSA. The Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB is distinguishable because it barred backpay for work not performed, whereas this case concerns wages for work actually performed. Enforcing the FLSA against employers of unauthorized aliens supports the policy goals of both the FLSA and IRCA by removing the economic incentive—cheap labor—for employers to violate immigration laws, thereby protecting the domestic labor market.
Concurring - Loken, Circuit Judge
Yes, the workers may sue under the FLSA. While joining the majority's opinion and its conclusion, Judge Loken wrote separately to note that the issue of liquidated damages was not challenged on appeal. He suggests that the Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic might, in a future case, require a modified analysis for awarding liquidated damages to unauthorized alien workers, but does not decide the issue here.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle within the Eighth Circuit that an employee's immigration status is not a bar to recovering unpaid wages under the FLSA for work already completed. It aligns with other circuits and reinforces the idea that labor laws and immigration laws can work in tandem to disincentivize the hiring of unauthorized workers by eliminating the financial benefit of their exploitation. The ruling clarifies that Hoffman Plastic does not preclude FLSA claims for past work, limiting its application to prospective remedies like backpay for work not performed. This holding ensures that employers cannot profit from violating both immigration and labor laws simultaneously.
