Jara v. Strong Steel Door, Inc.
58 A.D.3d 600, 871 N.Y.S.2d 363 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employment contract is not rendered illegal or unenforceable merely because the employee used fraudulent documents to obtain the job, so long as the work performed is itself lawful. The doctrine of unclean hands does not bar an employee's wage claim unless the employer can show it was directly injured by the employee's fraudulent conduct.
Facts:
- Strong Steel Door, Inc. entered into public works contracts with several municipalities that required it to pay its workers a prevailing wage.
- Strong Steel Door hired Carlos Huerta to perform construction work under these contracts.
- Prior to the hiring, Strong Steel Door requested that Huerta provide documentation of his eligibility to work in the United States.
- Huerta provided a fraudulent alien registration card and a fraudulent Social Security card to secure the employment.
- Huerta performed the construction work for Strong Steel Door.
- Huerta's employment was subsequently terminated.
- Huerta alleged that Strong Steel Door failed to pay him the prevailing wage required by its public works contracts.
Procedural Posture:
- Carlos Huerta sued Strong Steel Door, Inc., and David Wei in the Supreme Court, Kings County (a New York trial court) to recover unpaid prevailing wages.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss Huerta's complaint against them.
- The Supreme Court, Kings County denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- The defendants, Strong Steel Door, Inc., and David Wei (as appellants), appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court).
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 employee's use of fraudulent documentation to prove eligibility for employment render the employment contract illegal and unenforceable, thereby precluding a claim for unpaid prevailing wages?
Opinions:
Majority - Prudenti, P.J., Garni, and Belen, JJ.
No. An employee's use of fraudulent documentation to secure employment does not render the employment contract unenforceable under New York law. The court reasoned that while illegal contracts are generally unenforceable, the contract here was for lawful construction work; the illegality related to Huerta's immigration status, not the nature of the work itself. Citing precedent like Balbuena v IDR Realty LLC, the court distinguished cases where the work performed is outlawed from cases where the worker's status is at issue. Furthermore, the doctrine of unclean hands does not apply because Strong Steel Door was not injured by Huerta’s misrepresentation, as it received the bargained-for labor.
Concurring - Fisher, J.
No, summary judgment is inappropriate. The central factual issue is whether Strong Steel Door was actually induced to hire Huerta as a result of his fraudulent documents. If the employer was so induced, Huerta cannot prevail. Because inducement is a triable issue of fact that cannot be resolved on a summary judgment motion, the motion must be denied. Additionally, a question of fact remains as to whether Strong Steel Door did in fact pay the required prevailing wage.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces New York's pro-worker policy by separating the legality of the work performed from the employee's immigration status or the method used to obtain employment. It narrows the 'illegal contract' defense, preventing employers from using an employee's misrepresentation as a shield against their own statutory obligations to pay prevailing wages. The ruling ensures that employers who benefit from labor cannot subsequently escape wage laws by pointing to the employee's fraud, thereby placing the burden of compliance squarely on the employer regardless of the employee's status.
