Obama-Era Judge Sides With Illegal Immigrant Who Sued Company For Discrimination
Judge punishes company for following federal law and refusing to hire illegal immigrants.
A judge appointed by Barack Obama rejected a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against one of the biggest companies in the United States. The basis of the complaint was that an illegal immigrant was rejected for an internship because he was not in the country legally.
Illegal immigrants have long had issues with gaining legal employment. Illegal immigrants in the U.S.A. tend to work under-the-table jobs, jobs that pay them in cash. Those jobs are generally less regulated and also pay less, sometimes even below minimum wage.
However, because ILLEGAL immigrants are, by definition, illegally in the country, they often cannot get employment. After all, governments at both the federal and state level penalize illegal immigrant employees, and they even raid businesses suspected of hiring illegals. But now, for the second time in a handful of years, a federal court has proclaimed that businesses can be sued for ‘discriminating against illegal immigrants’ by refusing to hire them.
Judge Kathleen M. Williams, an Obama-appointed judge and former public defender appointed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 2011 delivered the verdict, rejecting Procter & Gamble’s motion to dismiss the suit out of hand.
The company was following federal law. Hiring undocumented illegal immigrants is illegal. Yet, the judge felt like their “discrimination” couldn’t go without punishment.
The case revolved around Procter & Gamble, and their refusal to hire an illegal Venezuelan immigrant for a paid internship.
Procter & Gamble, one of the largest companies in the United States, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio offered a paid internship. However, they made it very clear that their internship was open only to those legally in the United States.
Specifically, stipulations of the internship said that applicants needed to be a “U.S. citizen or national, refugee, asylee, or lawful permanent resident.”
David Rodriguez, the Venezuelan immigrant in question, is none of those things. He IS a DACA recipient. However, many businesses are not willing to treat such individuals as any of those above classes of American or lawful immigrant, because there remain many questions about the legality of DACA.
There is also a worry that President Trump will be allowed to finally carry out his promise to do away with DACA, and that the legislature will do nothing to fill the gap. If that were to happen, companies like Procter & Gamble might find that they were suddenly employing illegal immigrants.
If that were to happen, they could be in very real legal trouble and could face fines and various legal action from governments both federal and local. They would also have to fire a number of people, obviously.
So when David Rodriguez applied for the internship, he was obviously disregarded as a candidate. After all, he didn’t meet the basic qualifications.
David Rodriguez felt that this was discrimination, and leftist Judge Kathleen Williams agreed that the case had merit.
This means that David Rodriguez’s lawsuit against his prospective employer will be allowed to move forward, and he will be able to attempt to sue them for discrimination even though his status in the United States is questionable at best and one injunction away from deportation in reality.
In reaching the decision to allow the suit to go forward, Judge Kathleen Williams cited a 2014 suit, also brought forward on behalf of an illegal immigrant by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF).
In that suit, a New York suit brought against Northwestern Mutual insurance, an illegal Mexican alien sued Northwestern Mutual for discriminating against him by refusing to consider him for a paid internship. The Mexican illegal alien, Ruben Juarez, was told he needed to provide proof of legal residency.
Because he was an illegal alien protected by DACA, he had no proof of legal residency to offer.
Both cases are supported by MALDEF, raise an interesting legal question that needs answering. However, businesses have every right to defend themselves from problem employees, those who will cause them issues in the long run.
It’s the reason that businesses are still allowed to discriminate against convicts, those with bad credit, and those with poor work histories.
Further, the federal government and most state governments penalize and fine businesses that hire illegal immigrants.
DACA recipients are, for all legal intents and purposes, illegal immigrants. They are simply illegal immigrants who fall into a specific category and who were given a likely unconstitutional reprieve from deportation by a former president.
Businesses hiring DACA recipients are taking a risk, and that’s their right to do. However, the idea that it is discrimination to refuse to hire someone who has essentially committed a crime is absurd.
Hopefully, this lawsuit ends at the court of appeals. It certainly is absurd to demand that businesses must be forced to hire people who are breaking laws.
