Social Security Mismatch Wasn't Grounds To Fire
Recent Cases
Thirty-three janitors at the Los Angeles Lakers' arena were wrongfully fired for not responding quickly enough to a request to provide a correct Social Security number, the 9th Circuit ruled.
Aramark Facilities Services received a "no-match" letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) stating that information for 48 of its workers at the Staples Center did not match the numbers in the SSA database.
This caused Aramark to suspect that the janitors were in the United States illegally.
Aramark gave the employees three days to begin the process of getting a new Social Security card. Fifteen employees complied, and the other 33 were fired a week later.
The Service Employees International Union filed a grievance, and an arbitrator gave the employees their jobs back, along with back pay. The district court overturned the ruling, stating it violated public policy on immigration.
Judge Hall reversed the district court ruling.
"This case boils down to a single issue: whether the SSA's no-match letter - and the fired employees' responses - put Aramark on constructive notice that it was employing undocumented workers," Hall wrote.
But the government agency failed to do so in the Aramark case, the court ruled, as constructive notice required positive proof of a workers' undocumented status.
"The employees' failure to meet the deadline," Hall said, "is simply not probative enough of their immigration status to indicate that public policy would be violated if they were reinstated and given back pay."
Related listings
-
Court Overturns $101M Tax Refund To Texaco
Recent Cases 06/17/2008The 9th Circuit rejected Texaco's bid for a $101 million tax refund on the $1.25 billion settlement it paid the government for selling oil and gas above the price ceilings set by federal regulations. The judges reversed judgment for Texaco, now a sub...
-
Court OK's Discrimination Suit Against Restaurant
Recent Cases 06/12/2008A California appeals court reinstated the discrimination claims of a disabled customer who was ridiculed and denied service at a restaurant. Ron Wilson followed his occasional visits to Murillo's Mexican Food with letters to owner Frances Murillo, su...
-
Shareholders Sue Baker Hughes For Bribery
Recent Cases 06/09/2008Directors of Baker Hughes, worldwide oil services, failed to stop bribing foreign officials despite a court order to do so, shareholders claim in Federal Court. Shareholders say the "Code of Conduct" the company instituted in 2002, after the SEC sued...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.