Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteemployment lawcompliancestatute of limitationsgood faithliens
statutewillemployment lawcompliancestatute of limitationsgood faith

Related Cases

Knight First Amendment Institute v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs
View Case »
Meza-Rodriguez; U.S. v.
View Case »
Quintana v. Holland
View Case »
Amanullah v. Cobb
View Case »
Martinez-Garcia v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

DLS Precision Fab LLC v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Facts

DLS Precision Fab LLC, located in Phoenix, Arizona, experienced significant growth in the late 2000s due to a Department of Defense program, leading to an increase in employees. To manage compliance with employment laws, DLS hired a human resources director who failed to fulfill his responsibilities, leading to violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Following a Notice of Inspection from ICE, DLS was found liable for numerous violations related to employment verification and continued employment of ineligible aliens, resulting in a substantial penalty.

DLS is a company located in Phoenix, Arizona, providing custom sheet metal fabrication in a variety of industries. In the late 2000s, DLS grew to about 200 employees because of the expansion of a Department of Defense program. To deal with the sudden growth of its workforce and ensure its compliance with applicable state and federal employment laws, DLS hired a well-credentialed human resources director (the 'HR director'). Unbeknownst to the company, however, this individual shirked his responsibility to ensure the company's compliance with the INA to the point, as later described by DLS, 'of literally stuffing the government's correspondence in a drawer and never responding.'

Issue

Did the ALJ err in finding DLS liable for violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and did the good faith defense and statute of limitations defense apply to the violations cited?

DLS argues that the ALJ erred by granting summary decision despite the existence of genuine issues of fact as to DLS's good faith defense to the alleged violations.

Rule

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, employers must verify that employees are authorized to work in the U.S. and cannot continue to employ unauthorized aliens. The good faith defense applies only to specific violations, and a statute of limitations defense must be properly asserted with supporting facts.

Section 274A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b) , requires employers to verify that their employees are legally authorized to work in the United States.

Analysis

The court found that the ALJ correctly applied the law by determining that the good faith defense did not apply to the violations for which DLS was cited, as the violations were substantive rather than technical. Additionally, DLS's failure to properly assert the statute of limitations defense by not providing a statement of facts was a critical factor in the court's decision. The court noted that the violations were timely asserted by ICE, except for one specific violation that was conceded to be outside the limitations period.

We are not persuaded by this argument. For one thing, these facts do not strike us particularly peculiar. DLS is not the first employer to hire an employee with the expectation that he or she will comply with the law only to be disappointed, nor is it likely to be the last.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the ALJ's decision regarding the majority of violations but reversed the finding on one violation due to the statute of limitations. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.

For the most part, we deny DLS's petition, but we grant it in one part and disagree with the ALJ's conclusions in one important respect.

Who won?

The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the majority of the ALJ's findings against DLS and confirmed the imposition of penalties for the violations.

With regard to the ALJ's finding that DLS was liable for 504 violations, we conclude that one charge was untimely under the applicable statute of limitations, so that violation cannot stand.

You must be