Janice Arres v. Imi Cornelius Remcor, Inc.
333 F.3d 812, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 12887, 20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1866 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state-law claim for retaliatory discharge cannot be based on an employee's activities related to federal immigration law because immigration is a field of exclusive federal power, precluding states from establishing their own public policy in this area.
Facts:
- IMI Cornelius Remeor, Inc. ('Remeor') hired Janice Arres as a human resources administrator.
- In March 1999, the Social Security Administration notified Remeor that 10% of its employee W-2 forms contained name or number mismatches.
- Arres investigated and concluded the mismatches were due to employees providing fraudulent information, who she believed were unauthorized aliens.
- Arres recommended to her supervisors that Remeor immediately fire these employees, consistent with what she believed was past company practice.
- After consulting with the Social Security Administration and legal counsel, Remeor's management decided instead to send letters asking the affected employees to correct any errors.
- Arres believed her employer's approach was unlawful and insubordinately refused to process the information employees submitted in response to the letters.
- As a result of her refusal, Remeor terminated Arres's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Janice Arres filed suit against IMI Cornelius Remeor, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- Arres's complaint alleged violations of Title VII (race and national origin discrimination) and a state-law claim for retaliatory discharge.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Remeor, concluding that a federal anti-retaliation statute foreclosed the state-law claim.
- Arres appealed the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- On appeal, Arres abandoned her federal Title VII claims and argued only her Illinois retaliatory discharge claim.
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 Illinois's public policy against retaliatory discharge protect an employee who is fired for refusing to follow her employer's chosen method of complying with federal immigration law?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Circuit Judge.
No. Illinois's public policy does not protect an employee from being discharged for insubordinately attempting to enforce her own view of federal immigration law. The court reasoned that immigration law is a domain of exclusive federal power, meaning states like Illinois are not entitled to have a public policy on the matter. While Illinois public policy generally protects employees who report violations of federal law, this principle does not apply in fields where federal power is not just supreme, but exclusive. Congress provided an anti-retaliation provision for one part of the immigration law (§ 1324b) but omitted one from the part Arres was concerned with (§ 1324a), and Illinois is not free to create a state-law remedy where Congress did not. Furthermore, an employee is not free to ignore an employer's directives, especially when the employer has sought and is following legal advice on how to comply with the law; doing so constitutes insubordination.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the scope of the state tort of retaliatory discharge by invoking the doctrine of federal field preemption. It clarifies that a state's general public policy of upholding federal law does not extend to areas where the federal government's power is exclusive, such as immigration. The ruling reinforces that states cannot create causes of action that supplement or alter the enforcement mechanisms Congress has established in such fields. For employers, it affirms their right to manage compliance with complex federal laws based on legal advice, without being held hostage by an individual employee's conflicting interpretation of the law.
