Study – Immigration Status in Work Related Lawsuits
- By websitebuilder
- •
- 13 Feb, 2013
- •
A new study from a University of Illinois expert in labor relations has concluded that most courts in the United States disregard a person’s immigration status in work related lawsuits. Michael LeRoy, professor of law and labor relations at Illinois, says that lower courts are essentially refusing to view lawsuits as an “occasion to enforce immigration laws.”
The study covered a 10-year period from 2002 to 2012 and analyzed federal and state work-related cases that cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. National Labor Relations Board. The research found that depending on the type of litigation, plaintiffs won between 60 and 77.5 percent of the time. Only 5 percent of the cases involved the outcome in the Hoffman Plastic case, where the court found a violation of an employment law but denied a monetary award because of the unlawful status of the plaintiff.
“Knowingly employing illegal aliens creates a cost-free way for employers to create a hazardous workplace where people get injured and the insurance rates don’t go up,” LeRoy said. “Someone gets injured—you cart them off, turn them over to immigration and report them as deportable aliens, then hire the next batch of illegal aliens and go on from there. This is exactly what a lot of lower courts were worried about—that it enables employers to violate the law without consequences, and thus encouraging more hiring of unlawful aliens. It’s also what the four dissenting Supreme Court justices in the Hoffman case were worried about.”
Shapiro, Cohen and Basinger, Ltd. is proud to have successfully litigated one of the first Illinois cases addressing the issue of whether an injured worker’s immigration status is admissible at trial. In 2007, Francisco Garcia was killed on the job at an Archer Daniels Midland plant in Decatur, Illinois when he was scalded with boiling liquid. At trial ADM tried to offer evidence that raised questions about Francisco Garcia’s immigration status. ADM’s lawyers even cited the Hoffman Plastic Supreme Court case to justify the use of such evidence. But the trial court agreed with our legal arguments and barred any such evidence. The Court of Appeals—firmly in line with the national trend uncovered by Professor LeRoy— also agreed with us that any reference to the alleged illegal immigration status of Mr. Garcia was unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant. Francisco Garcia’s case was a victory for the safety of workers everywhere.
While bicyclists do their best to be safe on the road, accidents still happen. The sad reality is that most bicycle accidents are not the fault of bicyclists, but are the result of other drivers who do not see or fail to yield to bicyclists.
We’ve obtained record breaking verdicts that have gained us the reputation as one of the best accident law firms in Chicago. At Shapiro, Cohen and Basinger, Ltd., we are serious bicycle accident attorneys, not afraid to take on large corporations and insurance companies.
Under the law, police in participating departments would have to keep body cameras on at all times while on a call and the recordings would be maintained for 90 days. The law would also require independent investigations of officer-involved deaths. Proponents of the law hope it will serve to reduce police misconduct and unlawful use of force. The bill now goes to Governor Rauner for consideration.
If you or someone you know has been the victim of police misconduct, contact the experienced police misconduct attorneys at Shapiro, Cohen and Basinger, Ltd. today to discuss your legal rights.
- Cuts the number of jurors in civil cases from 12 to 6. The amendment also requires the parties to pay for alternate jurors.
- Increases the minimum payment for jury service to $25 for the first day and $50 for subsequent days.
- Mirrors federal law and that of many states by reducing the size of civil juries from 12 to 6 in Illinois. The requirement of unanimous decision is unchanged.
If you or a loved one have been injured, call Shapiro, Cohen and Basinger, Ltd. to discuss your right to a civil jury trial.
The pilot program will apply to some felony courtrooms at the Leighton Criminal Court Building, at 26th St. and California St. in Chicago. The Illinois Supreme Court previously approved the use of cameras in trial courtrooms as a way of making legal proceedings more transparent.
Under the program, video coverage will be prohibited in juvenile, divorce, adoption, child custody, evidence suppression and trade secret cases. Additionally, in the case of a sexual abuse prosecution, coverage of the accuser’s testimony is prohibited without his or her consent.
Judge Evans welcomed the pilot program, saying in a prepared statement “I am extremely pleased that the public will now hear and see through extended media coverage, exactly what is taking place in Cook County courtrooms.”
Supporters of the bill point out that the federal courts and a majority of state courts already use civil juries of this size. Additionally, advocates of the measure state that reducing the number of jurors in civil cases would mean less citizens being called for jury duty, thereby disrupting fewer families and businesses. The change would also shorten the voir dire process in trials, during which attorneys and the court question jurors to ensure those selected for jury service can be fair and impartial.
Should you have questions about your right to a civil jury trial, call one of the injury lawyers at Shapiro, Cohen and Basinger, Ltd. today for a free consultation.
In affirming the trial court’s order allowing the use of pseudonyms, the court recognized that the use of pseudonyms is disfavored and reserved for “exceptional circumstances” involving “highly personal” matters such as abortion, adoption, sexual orientation, and religion. Applying a balancing test, the court found that plaintiffs’ reproductive health and medical treatments were “extremely private and sensitive topics” and that individual privacy concerns outweighed the public’s interest in open court proceedings.
Joscelyn suffered a rare complication known as a uterine rupture, a condition where the uterus tears causing a disruption of the blood flow and thus the oxygen flow to the fetus. Although the nurses and the doctor were supposed to be monitoring her they shrugged off the warning signs and tragically assumed that all was well when it wasn’t. Dr. Javate didn’t even come to the patient’s room to see her until the baby had receded up the birth canal–a highly unusual event that invariably means a rupture is occurring. When he did finally come in, instead of ordering an immediate C-section, he told the nurse to give her
Pitocin–a drug used to stimulate contractions–the opposite of what should be done when the uterus is in the process of rupturing. Eleven minutes later he realized his mistake and ordered the C- section but by then it was too late and baby Nakia had passed away.
Because Dr. Javate was employed by a federally qualified clinic, the case had to be filed in federal court and there was no right to a jury. The hospital settled for $650,000 shortly before trial but the US government (which represented Dr. Javate), refused to even discuss settlement so the case proceeded to trial against the US and was tried by Don and Matt in January.
The Honorable Thomas Durkin issued his decision on September 5, 2014 ruling in favor of the plaintiff and assessed the damages at $1,500,000. In his 58 page written decision he found for the plaintiff on virtually every aspect of the case. While nothing can replace the child they lost, Joscelyn and Christopher are extremely gratified that the responsible parties have been held accountable for their neglect that caused Nakia’s death.
