Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc.

384 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2004), <em>cert. den.</em> 544 U.S. __, (March 7, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 52644

Description

Ninth Circuit Upholds District Court’s Protective Order Against Employer’s Inquiry into Immigration Status

Abstract

The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s protective order against defendant employer’s questions during discovery regarding plaintiffs’ immigration status. The Ninth Circuit said that the “chilling effect that the disclosure of plaintiffs’ immigration status could have upon their ability to effectuate their rights” outweighed defendant’s interest in the information. Plaintiffs—limited-English-proficient Latina and Southeast Asian women—were employed in defendant’s factory. After adverse employment consequences from their poor performance on mandatory job-skill tests given only in English, plaintiffs sued in federal court; they alleged national-origin discrimination in violation of Title VII. At a deposition, defendant asked where one plaintiff was born and married. Contending that the questions would deter pursuit of their workplace rights, plaintiffs sought a protective order. The magistrate judge granted the order; after the decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137 (200) (Clearinghouse No. 54,508), which held that undocumented workers were ineligible for back pay under the National Labor Relations Act, the district court judge certified an interlocutory appeal. The Ninth Circuit said that requiring plaintiffs to answer immigration-related questions during discovery would hamper “the national effort to eradicate discrimination in the workplace” and constitute a substantial burden on both plaintiffs and the public interest in enforcing Title VII. The Ninth Circuit distinguished Hoffman on three grounds. First, the Act contemplates limited private causes of action, while Title VII enforcement depends principally upon private causes of action. Second, Congress designed Title VII remedies to punish employers who discriminate. Third, Hoffman’s limitation on the National Labor Relations Board’s authority to remedy violations under the Act cannot affect a federal court’s authority in a Title VII action. Even if Hoffman applied, it did not require the court to allow defendant’s questions. Furthermore, the questions related to damages, not liability.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiff represented by Christopher Ho, Marielena Hincapie, Donya Fernandez, Employment Law Center, Legal Aid Society of San Francisco, 1663 Mission St., Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103 (415.864.8848); William J. Smith, Melvin M. Richtel, Richtel & Smith, 2350 E. Shaw Ave., Suite 154, Fresno, CA 93711 (559.432.0986); Edward M. Chen, American Civil Liberties Union, 1663 Mission St., Suite 460, San Francisco, CA 94103 (415.621.2493)
Docket Date
2004-09-20 00:00:00+00:00