August 02, 2006
Illegal immigrants allowed to sue employer for replacing them with legal workers
AP: "Judge grants class-action status to farm workers' lawsuit"
[U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Leavitt] has granted class-action status to a lawsuit filed by Yakima Valley farm workers who contend a Los Angeles-based labor contractor illegally and intentionally displaced them with workers from Thailand.
The Thai workers are authorized under the federal H-2A guest-worker program. Attorneys for the employer argued that "264 members of the class should not be counted because they presented Social Security numbers that didn't match federal records." Judge Leavitt ruled that:
the immigration status of the plaintiffs doesn't provide a basis for excluding them from the class.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 02, 2006
10:20 AM | Email This
1. You are right. I thought you were making this up, but Oregon live did cover it.
What has this country become?
2. So, they contend it is illegal to fire people you weren't legally able to hire to begin with to replace them with legal workers?
Lawyers are the bane of civilization and common sense.
3. Global Horizons should be in hot water for hiring ILLEGAL aliens, not for hiring LEGAL aliens.
It is astounding to me that this judge puts a higher value on ILLEGAL vs LEGAL immigrants.
As for the 264 plaintiffs that "presented Social Security numbers that didn't match federal records", since they are identified, can they be charged with a federal crime?
What does rule of law matter when judges and state governments don't bother to follow them?
4. Based upon Magistrate
5. Sorry 'bout that posting error. Based upon Magistrate Laevitt's decision I guess that when a brothel is shut down by the police the madame and her stable can band together as a class action group and sue the city for violating their civil rights in denying them the right to work.
Maybe meth cookers should sue when their labs are shut down.
6. Alright, that's it. That's outrageous!
7. I haven't read the opinion, but it sounds like all that happened was that the Judge granted class action status to the group, and there probably is a mix of US citizens and illegal immigrants in the class. This decision had nothing to do with the merits of the case.
Granting class status makes sense, otherwise we'd have hundreds of individual lawsuits. If the illegals were not included in the class they would file their own lawsuit, which would still require at least a hearing.
Hopefully the trial court will sort this all out, because it is distrubing to think that people who are breaking the law by being here have more rights than people that follow the rules.
8. It's finally happened.....the insane asylum is now run by the inmates.....Thank you to LIBERAL JUDGES, and ATLA for allowing this to happen....
I can't wait to see the next chapter in this adventure. GOD help us all - we need it with decisions like this !!!
9. The next chapter should be a large group of U.S. citizen construction workers, or landscapers, etc. who have lost their jobs to illegal immigrant, cheap labor, to band together, file a class action suit against the companies that hired the illegals, AND their unions. That would be quite a show. How much are you all willing to bet they would NOT be granted class action status?
10. Assestant US Attorney,John Mangum, said in Federal District Court.The Constitution, doesn't appy to Indians. This took place early last year. Is, that not what the illegal aliens clame to be? Sorry but if thats true, who ever filed that suit, is in for a cuit all of their own. So employers take note, unlawful persecution, the law is on your side.Make them pay big time.
11. SO if you follow the laws of the US you get sued. IF you violate the laws of the US you get protections. Has the constitution of the US been changed so that non citizens and criminals have more rights than citizens? I guess that is the lawyer way of thinking.
12. So would someone please give us some links or references to Republican politicians in this state doing something to correct this?
(I've never expected the Democrats to do anything. But the Rs don't seem too eager either, do they?)
13. Has anyone noticed that lawyers have become the new white collar welfare class. It is apparent that lawyers/judges keep rendering absurd decisions in an attempt to make more work for themselves in the form of appeals and counter suits.
14. Okay, so why exactly did Washington State pull Global's license? Is the state enabling the illegal aliens to get work by yanking the license of the company that hired legal workers?
15. solution to this insanity: any lawyer representing an illegal alien agrees (before he/she earns any payment from the government) to sponsor the alien (out of own pocket) for all represented aliens' costs while here--healthcare, education, etc etc; THEN we'll see how noble the lawyers are when THEY pay the tab of law-breakers; if you have a dog in the fight, you will act differently; sure--easy to sue when it's not your personal dime;
so--we taxpayers are getting hit twice--paying for illegals locally AND getting sued by them to boot! insanity! is this Alice's Wonderland?! could I do this in Mexico? wake up, voters! WA will become a 3rd world stinkhole; and when it's a 3rd world stinkhole, where will these lawyers live? among us?
16. Wow, I wasn't old enough in the 60's but I swear I must be halucinating.
This is so far outside the realm of rational thought it just scares the hell out of me.
17. glad to hear of more illegal alien rights; reason? recent news has not yet reported an illegal (uninsured) alien fatally t-boning a politician's or prominent lawyer's car with their kid or grandkid in it; hope it does not happen, but you'll damn sure see action and action MUCH faster than those 90+ 'emergency bills' passed in WA legislature! let the common people pay for this--until--it spills into the legisators' or laywers' OWN back yards;
18. America...what a country!!!
19. OBI-WAN [#7 above]:
I haven't read the opinion, but it sounds like all that happened was that the Judge granted class action status to the group,
1 - SORRY, OBI WAN, BUT YOU MISSED THE KEY LINE: "the immigration status of the plaintiffs doesn't provide a basis for excluding them from the class." THIS IS WHERE THE JUDGE DETOURED FROM LAW TO PC POLITICS.
2 - ILLEGALS WOULD HAVE NO STANDING IN THIS SUIT.and there probably is a mix of US citizens and illegal immigrants in the class. GOOD POINT; SEE 6 BELOW
This decision had nothing to do with the merits of the case.
3 - OF COURSE IT DOES - JUDGES RULING CAN ONLY BE BASED ON HIS DETERMINATION OF FACT REGARDING THE DOCUMENTS ... THE DETERMINATION OF FACT WHICH IS AT THE CORE OF THIS CASE.
Granting class status makes sense, otherwise we'd have hundreds of individual lawsuits.
4 - AGAIN, IRRELEVANT; CLASS ACTION STATUS IS NOT AT ISSUE; THE ISSUE IS A JUDGE INCLUDING 264 PLAINTIFFS WHO, BASED ON FACTS APPARENTLY ON RECORD, HAVE NO STANDING.
If the illegals were not included in the class they would file their own lawsuit,
5 - NOT WITHOUT LEGAL STANDING TO BRING SUCH ACTION [SEE 2 ABOVE]
which would still require at least a hearing.
6 - NO HEARING NECESSARY; IF THEY HAVE PROPER DOCUMENTS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY THE FEDS ON THE EMPLOYER, THEY NEED MERELY SHOW THEM TO THE COURT TO BE RESTORED TO THE CLASS ACTION. IF THEY DON'T HAVE PROPER EMPLOYER[FED]-REQUIRED DOCUMENTS, REFER TO 2 ABOVE.
Hopefully the trial court will sort this all out, because it is distrubing to think that people who are breaking the law by being here have more rights than people that follow the rules.
7 - SINCE THE US JUDGE HAS ALREADY PRE-AJUDICATED THE ISSUE AT THE CORE OF THIS OUTRAGEOUS ATLA GIMMICK SUIT, WHAT DO YOU THINK REMAINS FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO "SORT OUT"?
20. If all those attorneys and judge Leavitt had read the 200+ pages of the Dred Scott decision in law school, instead of listening to those who said it was nothing but racism, they would know what "standing" is.
P/P certainly understands it.
An attorney is a licensed agent - a lawyer loves the law. WA doesn't have very many lawyers but it sure is infested with attorneys.
21. Unbelievable...The inmates are running the asylum !!
22. This really isn't anything surprising. Standing turns on redressable injury, not legal status.
Suppose A beats up B and takes his money. C is a witness to the whole thing. B has standing to sue A, because he was actually injured. C doesn't have standing, because he wasn't. The citizenship status of the various parties doesn't matter.
The illegal immigrant members of the class should be charged with any crimes they have committed and/or deported, and they should probably lose the suit--but none of that has anything to do with standing.
23. The American People should start a class-action lawsuit on the politicians who are recklessly and intentionally breaking our laws and for breech of contract, whereas they were sworn in to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States, and charged with a count of felony for each illegal who is working in the U.S. under the table. That is, if they want to justify that huge rise in their wages.
24. 22. Jake:
"Standing turns on redressable injury, not legal status."
You are ignoring the point: the illegal immigration status of the plaintiffs is the key FACT, exactly BECAUSE it determines the action the employer must take. Even if we accept your proposition about standing, the "citizenship of the parties" ABSOLUTELY matters IN THIS CASE because citizenship is THE fact which must be determinative of the employer's motivation and action. So, how does an employer's compliance with Federal law create a "redressable injury?"
P / P
25. jake--what about my 'standing' as a legal taxpayer paying for an illegal alien? am I harmed? yep--every dollar for him is one less for LEGAL citizens, legal disabled, our veterans and our LEGAl seniors who paid into the system; to me, an illegal getting ANY benefits is tantamount to stealing--first, you are ILLEGAL--second, you are NOT ENTITLED to squat--third, you did not contribute; "standing" theory aside, dosen't the law also try to redress MY greviances of paying for someone NOT ENTITLED?
26. The "plaintiffs" who are illegal aliens HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS since they are in this country illegally, and are in fact attempting to sue because BECAUSE THEY WERE CAUGHT COMMITTING A CRIME ! The judge is FULL OF SHIT.