How to File a Complaint with the California Labor Commissioner

The office of the Labor Commissioner at the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) reviews claims of employees regarding employers who violate laws related to employment. Filing a complaint may involve strict deadlines, accurate completion of a number of forms, and collection and submission of evidence supporting your claim. The following includes some information regarding how to file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner.

Discrimination Complaints

Specific procedures must be followed in order to file a complaint regarding unlawful discrimination based on protected factors, harassment, retaliation for reporting discrimination or harassment, wrongful termination, or other related matters. To file a complaint, you must:

• Be an applicant, employee, or former employee who suffered adverse employment actions (denial of job, demotion, termination, or other discipline) due to unlawful discrimination or retaliation.
• File your complaint within six months of the discriminatory action (this deadline can vary for other specific types of claims, so always check with an attorney regarding the deadline in your case).
• Complete and mail the correct form, including your personal information, employer information, your allegations, the remedies you are seeking, and witnesses who can attest to your allegations.
• File your claim by mail or in person at the office of the DLSE that handles discrimination claims in your area.

Wage Claims

These requirements apply to filing a wage-related complaint:

• You must be an employee or former employee who has suffered one of the following:
  • Unpaid wages;
  • Unauthorized deductions from your pay;
  • Failure to reimburse you for business expenses;
  • Inadequate meal or rest break periods;
  • A paycheck that bounced;
  • Not receiving your final paycheck; or
  • Not being allowed to inspect your pay records.
• You must file your claim within three years of the alleged violation (or within one year for certain types of violations).
• You must accurately complete and mail the correct wage claim form, including detailed information regarding your hours worked, wages received, and unpaid wages. You must also complete any additional necessary forms if your claim involves irregular hours, commission, or vacation wages.
• You must submit a copy of your time records, pay statements and checks, dishonored checks, notice of employment information, and collective bargaining agreements, if applicable.
• You must file your claim by mail or in person at the office of the DLSE that handles wage claims in your area.

If you make errors on your paperwork or do not send in the correct supporting documents, your claim may be significantly delayed or even denied. You should never risk a denial by incorrectly following procedures for filing a complaint.

Contact an Experienced Employment Law Attorney for Help Today

Filing a complaint or claim with the Labor Commissioner in California can be complicated. In order to make sure you do not make a mistake and reduce your chances of recovery, you should always seek out the assistance of an experienced employment law attorney as soon as possible. At the Pershing Square Law Firm, we have successfully assisted numerous employees receive the compensation they deserve, so please do not hesitate to call today at (213) 377-5796 to discuss your case.

“Millionaire Matchmaker” Contestant Facing Labor Law Allegations

Last January, Californian Stephanie Costa appeared on Millionaire Matchmaker, a reality TV program on Bravo. The show helps self-described millionaires find suitable romantic partners. On the show, the 30 year-old Costa boasted about her Beverly Hills mansion and her multiple motor vehicles, all of which she stated she paid for by owning the company Bedford Care Group. Bedford Care Group runs six assisted living facilities for the elderly throughout California.

While Costa was trying to become a reality TV star and flaunting her wealth, she was also allegedly mistreating her employees by violating several state labor laws. Now, just over a year after her luxurious television appearance, Costa instead finds herself in a legal hearing to appeal a decision against her by the Office of the California Labor Commissioner.

Labor Commissioner Decision

Last year, after an investigation, the California Labor Commissioner found that Costa and Bedford Care Group violated several state wage and hour laws with the following actions:

• Expecting employees to work significantly extended shifts;

• Not allowing the proper breaks for meals or rest under the law;

• Not paying certain employees the 2013 state minimum wage of $8.00 per hour (the CA minimum wage will rise to $9.00 per hour on July 1, 2014);

• Not paying the required time and a half overtime wages for hours worked over 40 per week;

• Failing to provide proper itemized pay statements that would allow employees to track their hours and check for accuracy.

The employees stated they continued working for Costa because they cared about the elderly residents of the Bedford Care Group facilities, however 11 former employees finally brought a claim against Costa and the company. The plaintiffs stated they could no longer stand for the injustice of the labor law violations, and that they hope their case will not negatively affect the residents of the facilities in any way.

After investigating the claims, the Labor Commissioner determined that Bedford Care Group owes the 11 former employees and the state nearly $1.6 million in compensation and penalties. The penalties break down as follows:

• $1.3 million to the employees for unpaid overtime;

• $95,053 to the employees for missed meal and rest breaks;

• $17,025 to the employees for unpaid minimum wage;

• $114,500 to the state in civil penalties for the violations.

Costa Appealing

Costa and the Bedford Care Group are not going down without a fight, as she entered the Labor Office for an appellate hearing in late January 2014. Costa claimed she had timesheets to demonstrate that the company paid all employees adequate wages for the hours they worked. However, the 11 former employees stated these timesheets were falsified and maintain their allegations. Employees of the Bedford Care Group took to the streets in protest while Costa was in her appeal to try to make their case public. The appellate decision is still pending.

California takes wage and hour laws very seriously. If you believe your employer has violated any labor laws, you should not hesitate to contact the Pershing Square Law Firm for assistance with a possible case today.

DOL Investigating Oakland Raiders Labor Lawsuit

Professional sports leagues in the United States have faced a rash of lawsuits in the past year, many of which involve allegations of labor law violations. Both the San Francisco Giants and the Miami Marlins faced lawsuits from former unpaid interns who claimed they should have received a minimum wage as employees. The Giants further agreed last year to pay a group of security employees over $500,000 for various labor law violations. The most recent professional sports team to garner national attention for possible labor law violations is the Oakland Raiders.

The lawsuit was filed by Lacy T., who is part of the cheerleading squad for the team, known as the Raiderettes (for safety purposes, cheerleaders only reveal their first names). Both current and former cheerleaders have joined in the class-action suit, which alleges several wage and hour violations against the football organization.

The plaintiffs claim the Raiders violated state labor laws in the following ways:

                                   

• The cheerleaders were expected to work more than eight-hour shifts without necessary breaks or overtime compensation, violating state requirement for meal and rest breaks, as well as overtime laws.

• The Raiders withheld pay until the end of the season, violating California laws regarding paydays and pay periods.

• That paycheck at the end of the season paid $125 per game for 10 games, which adds up to only $1,250 for 9 months of work, including 3 rehearsals per week, workouts, fittings, event appearances, photo shoots, and other mandatory meetings. Overall, the pay comes out to approximately less than $5.00 per hour for a season’s work, which violates California’s minimum wage laws.

•  The Raiders require the cheerleaders to pay for their own expenses related to required hair styling, makeup, and travel.

• The Raiders further unlawfully deduct from a cheerleader’s paycheck for minor infringements, such as chewing gum, bringing the wrong set of pom-poms to practice, or wearing the wrong type of outfit to rehearsal.

After all of these alleged violations, many Raiderettes do not even break even for the season.

The federal Department of Labor (DOL) has recently involved itself in the lawsuit by launching an investigation into violations of federal labor laws. The DOL is apparently looking into how several other teams treat their cheerleaders, as well. If the DOL finds that the Raiders violated federal employment laws, they have the power to order the organization to reimburse the cheerleaders for twice the amount of compensation they were originally denied. For this reason, the Raiders may end up paying significantly more than if they had simply followed labor laws to begin.

Some employers, such as professional sports organizations, believe they are above labor laws and do not have to follow them. However, cases like this demonstrate that employment laws apply to professional sports teams like any other employer, and the Raiders may face the consequences like any other company.

If you believe your employer has violated any wage, hour, or other labor laws, contact the Pershing Square Law Firm for assistance today.

Highest State Minimum Wage Proposed in California

In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama urged legislators to take charge in pushing minimum wage increases through Congress. California State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) took the request to heart, as he introduced a state bill on February 3, 2014 that would make California’s minimum wage the highest of any state if passed.

Currently, a law is in place that will raise the state minimum wage from $8.00 per hour to $9.00 per hour in July 2014, then again to $10 per hour in 2016. There is no provision in the current law for further annual increases based on inflation after 2016. Sen. Leno’s proposed bill would step up the wage increase as follows:

• $11.00 per hour in 2015;
• $12.00 per hour in 2016;
• $13.00 per hour in 2017;
• Annual adjustments tied to inflation starting in 2018.

While the bill is expected to garner some opposition, Leno defends the aggressive increases by citing the high cost of living in California. He stated that the federal minimum wage is simply a starting point, and state legislators should identify the needs of residents of their state and adjust the state minimum wage accordingly.

Current California Minimum Wage

Residents working 40-hour weeks at the existing state minimum wage of $8.00 per hour take home $16,640 annually, before taxes. The poverty line in California for a four-person family with one wage earner is $23,850. According to the United States census, this wage discrepancy puts approximately 24 percent of California residents under the poverty level despite working full-time jobs.

State Senator Leno owns his own company and pays his workers a minimum of $16 per hour. Leno states that paying higher wages reduces turnaround and increases employee productivity. He stated there is no excuse for companies making high corporate profits while some of their full-time employees need food stamps and other government assistance to survive.

Earlier this year, 600 prominent economists from the Economic Policy Institute signed a letter to federal lawmakers urging them to pass a federal minimum wage of $10.10 per hour. These economists assert that raising the minimum wage will bring many families out of poverty, thereby reducing the need for government public assistance and increasing spending by consumers. Recently, some conservative politicians and entrepreneurs in California have jumped on board, demonstrating support for a minimum wage increase and reduction in poverty.

Though the $13 per hour proposal would be the highest state minimum wage in the United States, it will still not be the highest local minimum wage. Last year, the city of SeaTac, Washington raised its minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Furthermore, Los Angeles legislators have a bill on the table to raise wages for hotel workers to $15.37 per hour, which would be the highest in the country. San Francisco has the highest minimum wage in California, currently at $10.55 per hour.

Everyone deserves to be adequately paid for their work. If you believe your employer is violating wage and hour laws, call the Pershing Square Law Firm today for help.

Federal Contractors to See Potential Wage Increase

Minimum wage has been a hot topic over the last year, and continues to be so into 2014. The Fair Minimum Wage Act now sits in front of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Act aims to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour in three stages over the next several years. The Act would further raise the minimum wage for tipped employees and ensure that, in future years, the minimum wage would adjust annually for inflation, as it does in many states.

While the majority of American minimum wage employees will have to wait for the bill to pass, another group of employees in the United States may see pay increases sooner. In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced his plan to sign an executive order, which will raise the minimum wage for federal contract employees to $10.10 per hour. Because federal contracts can be so complex, the new wage requirement will not affect anyone who is currently under contract, but will affect all of those who sign new future contracts or renewed contracts.

The President stated the order could be expected in a few weeks, and the White House claimed it believes that “[b]oosting wages will lower turnover and increase morale, and will lead to higher productivity overall.” Many lower wage-earning federal contract employees work on military bases as dishwashers, janitors, food servers, and launderers. Obama specifically voiced his belief that the people who help take care of United States troops should not have to live below the poverty level.

Opposition for the Wage Hike

Of course, people quickly spoke up against the President’s plan, citing concerns or simply downplaying the bill. First, some industry groups took the order as a slight against federal contractors, stating the President singled out contractors for the increase, which may insinuate that contractors do not already pay a fair wage.

Industry groups cited the Service Contract Act, which already requires employees under certain types of contracts to be paid much higher than $10.10 per hour.

Other politicians pointed out that the scope of the executive order would be much smaller than it sounds, stating that only approximately 10 percent of the 2.2 million federal contract employees currently make less than $10.10 per hour. Those are the only employees who would be covered under the order.

However, the Obama administration pointed out that the increase will still apply to 200,000 to 300,000 Americans, and will increase their standard of living. That is better than nothing, some politicians maintain. Others see this order as a push to pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act through Congress. Obama also commented, in his State of the Union address, that he would continue to encourage that bill, and for Congress to stand up for all workers in the United States by increasing the federal minimum wage.

Though the federal minimum wage is currently still $7.25 per hour, the minimum wage in California is $8.00 per hour for 2013. If you have any questions regarding minimum wage or other wage and hour issues, call the Pershing Square Law Firm today for help.

Hot Employment Issues Going into 2014

Many employment cases involve groups of employees coming together to hold their employer accountable for widespread wrongdoing.  Lawsuits that involve large groups of plaintiffs like this are called class actions.  Class action employment cases used to often involve numerous employees who claimed they suffered the same type of discrimination.  However, the Supreme Court recently made it more difficult to qualify as a class in its decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.  In that case, 1.6 million female employees of the retail giant claimed they had suffered sex discrimination in the company’s promotion and pay raise practices.  The Supreme Court decided that the women did not have common enough experiences to constitute a class.  As a result of this decision, filing class action discrimination cases will now require prohibitive amount of discovery and other work for the plaintiffs.

Since the decision in 2011, employment law experts expect a drastic decline in the number of class action discrimination lawsuits.  However, this does not mean that employment cases will decline overall, as other hot employment issues are popping up in cases on a more regular basis as we go in to 2014.

Wage and Hour Cases

Wage and hour lawsuits have been on the rise, with the number of cases increasing 10 percent from 2012 to 2013.  Experts expect that number to keep rising, especially in light of the Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision.  Some common bases for wage and hour cases include:

·         Misclassification of employees vs. independent contractors

·         Non-payment of interns

·         Failing to pay full overtime wages

·         Failing to pay for time spent preparing for shifts or cleaning up after shifts

·         Not paying workers on time

·         Not paying workers their final paychecks if a company goes out of business

California is one of the states with the most worker-friendly wage and hour laws, along with New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Florida.  Therefore, California is especially expected to see an increase in this type of case in 2014.

Social Media Cases

The use of social media in the workplace has also become a hot-button employment issue.  New laws prohibiting employers from demanding access to employees’ personal social media profiles will be the focus of new cases targeting non-compliant companies.  Furthermore, many cases will likely involve wrongful termination in violation of the employee’s First Amendment rights to free speech, after an employer fires someone for posting certain material on social media sites.

Whistleblowing

The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) provides several protections, incentives, and financial rewards for whistleblowers who report violations regarding insider trading, corporate disclosure, accounting fraud, dealer-broker violations, and more.  Expect to see several whistleblowing claims arising in the New Year.  These cases will mostly involve claims of unlawful retaliation against protected whistleblowers.

In short, employment cases will not decrease simply because of the difficulties facing potential class action discrimination suits.  Employees still have plenty of reasons to file claims against their employers to receive the compensations they deserve.  If you are facing any employment issue, do not hesitate to contact the Pershing Square Law Firm to discuss a potential case.

The Unpaid Intern Question

Unpaid internships are sometimes very helpful for young people to gain training and experience in a particular industry.  In exchange for work, unpaid interns gain the opportunity to improve their resumes and be a more desirable job candidate in that field.  Companies, however, may sometimes take advantage of free labor without providing educational benefits in return.  This problem has become the focus of numerous lawsuits and has consistently made headlines over the past year.

Intern or Employee?

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that anyone classified as an “employee” must be paid a minimum hourly wage and overtime.  Unpaid interns do not fall under the “employee” label, and thus FLSA requirements do not apply to them.  However, companies may not simply call someone an unpaid intern and expect to gain free labor.  In fact, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) sets out six main criteria for defining unpaid interns:

1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern, and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

If these criteria are not met in an internship program, the company should be paying its interns.

Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc.

The entertainment industry is particularly notorious for using unpaid interns to complete mundane tasks that would otherwise be completed by paid employees.  Recently, this potentially unlawful trend has come to light in many lawsuits, led by Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., otherwise known as the “Black Swan” lawsuit.  A group of unpaid interns for Fox who worked on the Academy Award-winning movie, Black Swan, claimed in the lawsuit that their tasks primarily consisted of running errands, fetching coffee, and other mundane tasks.  The interns stated they received no specialized training or other educational benefits and, therefore, should have received minimum wage for their work under FLSA.

A lower court decided that the Black Swan interns did not meet the DOL criteria for unpaid internships and should have been classified as employees.  The case is now under review by a Court of Appeals, and the decision could set the stage for many other unpaid intern lawsuits against companies such as Hearst Magazines, Major League Baseball, Atlantic Records, Conde Nast, and the Charlie Rose Show.  In the meantime, companies should take a look at their internship programs to see if they meet the DOL criteria.   If not, those interns deserved to be paid a minimum wage.

If you have any questions regarding unpaid internships or any other wage and hour concerns, do not hesitate to contact the Pershing Square Law Firm today for help.

Will Automatic Gratuities Disappear in 2014?

 The restaurant industry has traditionally been a hot bed for wage and hour violations.  Restaurants across the country have recently attracted a lot of attention from the Department of Labor (DOL) due to investigations of possible violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which regulates wage and hour requirements on the federal level.  In a recent crackdown in Portland, Oregon, the DOL discovered FLSA violations in an incredible 79% of the restaurants investigated.  Many violations in the restaurant industry stemming from confusion and complications regarding tipped employees.  Though many servers and bartenders receive an hourly wage below the standard minimum wage, their hourly wages plus tips must add up to at least the mandated minimum wage.  Furthermore, many restaurant owners regularly miscalculate overtime rates for these employees as well.

New Tip Regulations for 2014

Distinguishing tips from wages has also been a controversial practice for both wages and for tax reporting purposes.  Because of the tax implications, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released an advisory bulletin last year that goes into effect as of January 2014, clarifying the tip-wage distinction for restaurant employees.  The bulletin states, in short, that any mandatory gratuities added on to a restaurant bill should be counted and taxed as wages, not tips.  Specifically, the bulletin reasons that a tip is defined as the following:

·         A payment by a customer free of compulsion

·         The amount of the payment is determined freely by the customer

·         Payment must not be negotiated or required by an employer’s policy

·         The customer may decide to whom they directly give the payment

Mandatory gratuity does not fit any of these four requirements for “tips.”  Therefore, the IRS has deemed that mandatory gratuity is instead a service charge, which would be considered a wage under federal tax guidelines.

Why is Wage v. Tip important?

Currently, service industry employees report their own tips to their employer for tax withholding purposes and employers must not withhold taxes on any unreported tips.  However, since mandatory gratuities are considered wages, employers must keep track of all of these gratuities, withhold taxes, and report them to the IRS.  Any failure to do so could result in penalties.  Additionally, if an employer does not factor such wages from mandatory gratuity into an employee’s hourly rate, overtime compensation rates may be inaccurately low.  Not providing enough overtime pay can result in FLSA violations.

In response to the IRS bulletin, many restaurants are choosing to eliminate mandatory gratuities, even for large parties.  First, most restaurant owners do not want to deal with the additional tracking of the gratuities.  Furthermore, because the Department of Labor is already keeping a close eye on restaurants, looking for possible FLSA violations.  Therefore, there is a greater chance that violations be discovered and will result in claims and penalties against the restaurant.

If you work in the service industry, you should know that you are entitled to all mandatory gratuities and must pay taxes on those wages as of January 2014.  If you believe your employer is not complying with the new laws or with any other tax laws, contact the Pershing Square Law Firm to discuss a possible case.

Burger Joint Tries to Set Living Wage Example

Much research shows that the minimum wage rarely equals a living wage.  The term minimum wage refers to the minimum amount an employer must pay a worker without violating the law.  The minimum wage in California is $8 per hour.  Different from minimum wage, the term living wage refers to the minimum amount of income a person requires to meet basic needs, such as shelter, food, and clothing for themselves and dependents.  In most cities, minimum wage for a 40 hour work week will not cover a person’s basic needs, and they will likely have to depend on credit or government assistance to survive.

Fast food restaurants are notorious for paying the majority of their employees minimum wage.  However, fast food workers have recently been stepping up and demanding that they receive higher pay—at least a living wage.  On August 29, 2013, many non-union fast food workers nationwide, primarily employees of McDonald’s, walked out and began to strike, demanding a wage of $15 per hour.  McDonald’s executives have responded that the company cannot afford to increase its wages without substantial layoffs or price increases.  However, former secretary of labor Robert Reich has pointed out in a petition on Moveon.org that McDonald’s CEO Don Thompson earned $13.8 million last year.  If the CEO earns such a substantial paycheck, it would seem the company could afford to increase wages.

Setting an Example

A Detroit-area fast food joint wants to demonstrate that companies can pay workers a living wage and still make a profit.  Burger and chicken restaurant, Moo Cluck Moo, already pays its workers $12 per hour and, as of October 1^st, will increase that wage to the $15 per hour that McDonald’s workers currently demand.  The owners believe that the 25% increase in wages is only “human” and sets a higher standard for how fast food businesses treat workers.

Furthermore, the owners state they will not lose profits, but actually benefit from the pay increase.  First, higher pay inspires harder work and better customer service.  In fact, owners state they regularly receive appreciative feedback regarding customer service in their restaurants.  The fast food industry is highly competitive and consumers have a lot of options if they crave a burger or chicken sandwich.  Quick and friendly customer service helps create customer loyalty.  Second, higher pay keeps turnover low, which means less time spent hiring, training, and supervising new employees.  Finally, Moo Cluck Moo has received a significant amount of free and positive publicity nationwide due to the impending wage increase.  Compared to McDonald’s executives who are on the defensive to justify their refusal to increase wages, the owners of Moo Cluck Moo look almost like heroes.

The battle for the living wage has only begun, and will likely continue for a significant period of time.  Workers believe they deserve a living wage, and seem prepared to fight long-term for one.  If you believe your employer is violating wage and hour laws or you have another type of employment dispute, contact an experienced employment attorney at Pershing Square Law Firm today.

Supreme Court Precedent Creates Difficulty for Undocumented Workers

In July of this year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to deny an award of back pay to undocumented alien workers in Palma v. NLRB.  The workers’ claim stated that their employer had wrongfully discharged them for participating in activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  On initial review, an administrative law judge recommended an award of both unconditional reinstatements with reimbursement of back pay for the workers.  The NLRB opted not to follow the recommendation, however, and denied an award of back pay based on a 2002 decision by the United States Supreme Court, Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB.  On appeal, the Second Circuit agreed with the NLRB’s interpretation of Hoffman Plastic and upheld the denial of back pay for the undocumented workers despite their wrongful discharge.

The Hoffman Plastics Decision

The NLRB’s reliance on Hoffman Plastics may constitute a significant barrier for undocumented workers in future wage claims.  In Hoffman Plastics, an illegal immigrant, Jose Castro, used false documents to obtain employment with Hoffman, a small manufacturer in California.  Seven months later, Castro participated in a union organizing campaign by handing out fliers and union authorization cards, activities that are legally protected by the NLRA.  After Hoffman terminated Castro and the others for their protected activities, they brought a claim before the NLRB, which awarded them reinstatement with back pay.  Hoffman Plastics appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Castro was not entitled to back pay because his employment was illegal under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).  The Supreme Court agreed with Hoffman’s argument, holding that the IRCA prevents punitive provisions against an employer under the NLRA that would benefit an employee who knowingly violated immigration laws.  Because Castro had fraudulently obtained employment in violation of the IRCA, he was entitled to no back pay award.

The plaintiffs in Palma argued that, unlike Hoffman, there was no evidence that they used false documents.  However, the Second Circuit held that mere unlawful presence in the United States was enough to be criminally punishable under the ICRA, and therefore bar any back pay awards.  However, the court left open the possibility of reinstatement of employment if the plaintiffs showed proper documentation.

Potential Barriers for Immigrant Workers

The United States Department of Labor stated that the Hoffman decision did “not mean that undocumented workers do not have rights under the U.S. labor laws."  However, the dissent in Hoffman expressed concern that the decision gives employers an avenue to relieve themselves of responsibility for illegal employment actions against undocumented workers, and many employment and immigration experts agree.  Hoffman and the recent Palma decisions significantly limit the availability of relief to immigrant workers in claims for unlawful termination, discrimination, and wage and hour violations.  This may potentially open the door for potential abuses of undocumented workers with few consequences for the employers and many worry that employers will feel free to violate the NLRA without fear of punishment. 

If you believe your employer has violated labor laws, you should contact the attorneys at Pershing Square Law Firm as soon as possible.