How Are Workers Losing their Rights to Sue for Discrimination and Unfair Labor Practices?
Fact Sheet - Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund - February 2004
Workers' rights to fair compensation, fair treatment, protection against unfair labor practices, and protection against discrimination are enshrined in federal civil rights laws.
The Fair Labors Standards Act (FLSA) requires that workers receive a minimum wage and overtime pay, and protects them against unfair labor practices. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) guarantees workers the right to join unions without fear of management reprisal. Recent Supreme Court decisions have substantially eroded the force of these two important laws, leaving many workers without any protection against unfair, exploitive, and retaliatory practices by employers. Moreover, the enforcement scheme envisioned by Congress - i.e. individuals protecting their civil rights - has been eroded for state employees. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund believes that all workers deserve a workplace environment that ensures equal opportunity, protects civil rights, and prevents discrimination.
State employees have lost their rights to sue for money damages violations of the FLSA, such as the denial of overtime pay. This was the Supreme Court's ruling in Alden v. Maine. The Alden ruling leaves state employees without adequate protection against employer abuses of federal labor laws.
State employees have become second-class citizens with regard to their rights to a workplace free of age or disability discrimination. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects workers ages 40 and older from age-based employment discrimination. It applies to every employer with 20+ employees ... except the states. Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court made clear in EEOC v. Wyoming that state employers must comply with the ADEA. But in 2000, the Supreme Court held in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents that states could not recover monetary damages for ADEA violations. Older state employees therefore have no meaningful remedy under federal law for discrimination.
Kimel upset almost 20 years of settled law and makes a mockery of the ADEA's protections from discrimination for millions of older state employees.
Immigrant workers have lost their rights to damages or back pay even when they prove that the employer violated federal labor law. In Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, the Supreme Court held that undocumented immigrants are ineligible to receive back pay for violations of the National Labor Relations Act. The plaintiff in Hoffman Plastic was wrongfully discharged because of his union activity.
Hoffman Plastic makes it easier for employers to violate the FLSA and NLRA, and to exploit their workforce, so long as they hire undocumented workers. This vulnerable and exploitable workforce is therefore in even greater danger of suffering from unlawful employment practices, intimidation, and retaliatory acts.
Since the Court's ruling in Hoffman Plastic, employers have aggressively attempted to extend the Supreme Court's holding to cases concerning other anti-discrimination statutes, such as Title VII. Ensuring that all workers are afforded full and effective protections against employment discrimination and unfair labor practices is a critical component of ensuring civil rights for all Americans.
The Effect - One Example
Sanchez v. Eagle Alloy
David Sanchez worked two jobs and clocked 80 hours a week doing manual labor, until one day his hand was crushed and burned as a work machine closed down on it. As a result of the accident, David underwent multiple surgeries and had to quit his second steel mill job. When David pressed for compensation, the company chose to exploit his undocumented status and refused to give him the money he was entitled to as an injured worker.
