Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Asger-Ali v. Hilton Hotels
No. 0114451/2002 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York County filed Nov. 4, 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55814
Description
Employee’s Alien Status Is Irrelevant in Context of New York Lost-Earnings Case
Abstract
The court determined that plaintiff employee’s alien status
was irrelevant in the case and refused to compel disclosure of
employee’s immigration status and documentation establishing
employee’s eligibility for employment in the United States.
Employee was injured while working for third-party defendant in
defendant and third-party plaintiff hotel’s basement.
Plaintiff sued for $35,000 in lost earnings. Hotel sought
disclosure of employee’s immigration status under the
Immigration Reform and Control Act and documentation of his
employment eligibility. The court noted that Hoffman Plastic
Compounds v. National Labor Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137
(2002) (Clearinghouse No. 54,508), did not prevent an undocumented
alien from claiming lost earnings in New York. The court adopted
the reasoning in Klapa v. O & Y Liberty Plaza Co., 645
N.Y.S. 2d 281 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996), which found that undocumented
alien status, absent other indicia establishing likelihood of
deportation, would not aid a jury in determining lost future
earnings. Finding no indication that employee had used fraudulent
documents to obtain employment and that hotel had not established
initiation of a deportation proceeding or that employee’s
alien status was relevant for any other reason, the court denied
hotel’s motion to compel disclosure. Moreover, noting that
employee had paid federal and state income taxes and social
security, and submitted tax returns, the court construed
hotel’s interest in employee’s alien status as an
attempt to deny him access to the courts through intimidation,
which the court found “intolerable.”
