Skip to main content

Proof of the Right to Work in U.S. is NOT Necessary to Proceed With Age Discrimination Claim


Santillan v. USA Waste of California, Inc. - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Gilberto Santillan ("Santillan") worked for USA Waste of California ("USA Waste") as a residential garbage truck driver in Manhattan Beach, California for 32 years starting in 1979.  Although Santillan was rarely disciplined during his tenure with USA Waste, this changed in January of 2009 when Steve Kobzoff ("Kobzoff") was assigned as Santillan's new route manager.  Between January of 2009 and July of 2010, Kobzoff disciplined Santillan six times. 

In March of 2011, USA Waste's garbage collection contract with the City of Manhattan Beach came up for renewal and USA Waste and Manhattan Beach homeowners specifically highlighted Santillan's exemplary service to the community.  USA Waste's contract was subsequently renewed.  

On December 5, 2011, USA Waste terminated Santillan for the first time.  USA Waste said the termination was because Santillan had four accidents in a twelve month period.  Santillan disputed that he had the four accidents.  Santillan's position was filled by an employee "over 40 years of age" and that had eleven years experience driving garbage trucks.  Santillan alleged he was one of five older Spanish speaking employees that was fired or suspended once Kobzoff was assigned as the Manhattan Beach route manager.  On December 7, 2011, Santillan filed a formal grievance against USA Waste challenging his termination.  Hundreds of letters from Manhattan Beach residents were apparently sent to USA Waste demanding that Santillan be reinstated.  Ultimately, on May 17, 2012, USA Waste and Santillan signed a Settlement Agreement in which USA Waste agreed to reinstate Santillan if he passed the California Department of Transportation drug test and physical exam, a criminal background check, and e-Verify.  Although Santillan reported to work on July 16, 2012, he was unable to provide the required documentation to comply with e-Verify was was terminated a second time on July 24, 2012.

Santillan filed a complaint against USA Waste on the grounds of wrongful termination based on age discrimination and retaliation.  The District Court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of USA Waste on the grounds that Santillan's failure to provide the required documentation for e-Verify was a "legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the July 2012 termination."  Santillan appealed. 

Holding:  (Note, this analysis looks at the Court's opinion as to Santillan's failure to provide the required documentation for e-Verify).  The Court of Appeals held that under McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis (in regard to an age discrimination claim), USA Waste was required to show a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Santillan.  In this case, the evidence in the record established that the only reason USA Waste gave for terminating Santillan in July of 2012 was his reinstatement was contingent upon complying with e-Verify and providing proof of his legal right to work in the United States.  

The relevant statute, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"), requires employers to review certain documents at the hiring stage to confirm that new employees hired after November 6, 1986 to confirm new employees are authorized to work in the United States.  However, two different IRCA regulations exempted Santillan from this requirement:  1) because Santillan was continuing his employment with USA Waste (as a result of being reinstated after original terminated), he was a continuing employee and therefore not a new employee; and 2) since Santillan had originally been hired by USA Waste before November 7, 1986, he was "grandfathered" in with the IRCA not applying to him.  As the Court of Appeals pointed out, USA Waste could not identify any authority to the contrary to counter either exemption.

As well, the Court held that USA Waste could not make Santillan's reinstatement contingent upon complying with e-Verify because to do so would violate California public policy.  As set forth in statute and by prior caselaw, "[a]ll protections, rights, and remedies available under state law, except any reinstatement remedy prohibited by federal law, are available to all individuals regardless of immigration status who have applied for employment, or who are or who have been employed in this state [California]."  In essence, California statutes have established the irrelevant of immigration status in enforcement of state labor, employment, civil rights, and employee housing laws.  Therefore, the Court held that USA Waste could not make Santillan's reinstatement contingent upon verification of his immigration status by way of e-Verify.

Judgment:  The Court of Appeals reversed the granting of summary judgment in favor of USA Waste on the grounds that neither the IRCA nor the Settlement Agreement entered into with Santillan could make Santillan's reinstatement contingent upon his complying with e-Verify to prove his immigration status.

The Takeaway:  Readers should remember that this case applies only to employers and employees in the Ninth Circuit.  With that being said, based upon the exemptions carved out in the IRCA and California public policy, this was a ruling that the Court got right.  The fact that the two exemptions identified by the Court applied to Santillan (and USA Waste could not find any authority to circumvent these exemptions) ultimately doomed them in this instance.  

With that being said, had California not had a public policy that considered immigration status to be irrelevant in the enforcement of state labor, employment, civil rights, and employee housing laws, this might have been decided differently.  It is easy to imagine another state that takes a hardline approach to immigration holding that illegal aliens are unable to proceed with an age discrimination claim if they cannot comply with the terms of a Settlement Agreement (that makes their reinstatement contingent upon complying with e-Verify...such as the facts in this case).

Majority Opinion Judge:  Circuit Judge Pregerson

Date:  April 7, 2017

Opinion:  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=75368816471802859&q=Santillan+v.+USA+Waste+of+Cal&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more