2015.12.15. Sanchez v. Dahlke. Respondent's Brief

7/24/2019 2015.12.15. Sanchez v. Dahlke. Respondent's Brief

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/20151215-sanchez-v-dahlke-respondents-brief 1/21

1

IN THE

MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

Case No. A-15-1183

ANIBAL SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DAHLKE TRAILER SALES, INC.

Defendant-Respondent and Cross-Appellant.

ON APPEAL FROM

THE DISTRICT COURT OF MINNESOTA

FOR THE TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANT’S BRIEF

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

MADIA LAW LLC

Joshua A. Newville, MN No. 395221

333 Washington Ave. N., #345

Minneapolis, MN 55401

Phone: 612-349-2743

Email: [email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANTDRAWE & MALAND

Todd L. Nissen, MN No. 25017X

7701 France Ave., #240

Edina, MN 55435

Phone: 952-841-2145




2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………….. 3

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................. 6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................................... 9

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 10

I. DAHLKE DID NOT VIOLATE MINNESOTA STATUTE 176.82 SUBD. 1

WHEN IT PLACED MR. SANCHEZ ON LEAVE. ......................................... 10

II. MR. SANCHEZ CANNOT MAINTAIN A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER

MINNESOTA STATUTE 176.82 FOR REFUSING TO CONTINUE TO

ACTIVELY EMPLOY HIM IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW. .............. 17

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 20



3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Bergeson v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 414 N.W.2d 724, 727 (Minn. 1987) . . 13

Correa v. Waymouth Farms, Inc., 664 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 2003) ........................ 18, 19

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668

(1973) ........................................................................................................................ 10

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett , 133 S.Ct. 2466, L.Ed2d 607 (2013) ..... 17

Randall v. Northern Milk Products, Inc., 519 N.W.2d 456 (Minn.App. 1994) ........... 10

Rivas v. Car Wash Partners ................................................................................... 14, 19

Schatz v. Interfaith Care Ctr., 811 N.W.2d 643, 649 (Minn. 2012) ............................ 12

Sleiter v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 868 N.W.2d 21, 24 (Minn. 2015) ....................... 13

Other

8 C.F.R. 274a.3. ............................................................................................................ 18

8 C.F.R. 274a.10……………………………………………………………….. ……18

8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1) and (2) ........................................................................................ 18

8 U.S.C. 1324a(f)(2012) ......................................................................................... 18, 19

8 U.S.C. 1324a(e)(4). ............................................................................................. 18, 19

8 U.S.C. 1324a(e)(5) .............................................................................................. 18, 19

Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) 274A(a) et seq. . ................................. 19

Minnesota Statute 176.82…………………...…2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20

Minn. Stat. 645.16 (2012) ............................................................................................ 12



4

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

ISSUE 1. Can an illegal/undocumented worker show a violation of the

Minnesota Workers’ Compensation anti-retaliation statute when

his employer, after paying his workers’ compensation benefits,

placed him on leave until he can show he can legally work in theUnited States?

ISSUE 2: Can Appellant, an illegal/undocumented worker, maintain a cause

of action against his employer pursuant to Minnesota Statute

176.82 for refusing to continue to actively employ him in

violation of federal law?

How the issues were raised in the District Court:

Via Dahlke’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Dahlke’s Second Motion for

Summary Judgment; and Dahlke’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Concise statement of the District Court’s ruling:

ISSUE 1: The District Court concluded Dahlke did not take an adverse

employment action against Mr. Sanchez in violation of Minnesota

Statute 176.82 by placing him on unpaid leave until he can

provide proper documentation establishing his right to work

legally in the United States.

ISSUE 2: The District Court concluded Dahlke did not violate Minnesota

Statute 176.82 by placing Mr. Sanchez on unpaid leave as

required by federal law until he can provide proper documentation

establishing his right to work legally in the United States.

How the issue was preserved for appeal:

By appeal from the District Court’s summary judgment rulings entered on

October 17, 2014 and June 22, 2015.

Most apposite authorities:

ISSUE 1: Minnesota Statute 176.82.

ISSUE 2: 8 U.S.C. 1324A et seq.



5

Immigration & Nationality Act 274A(a) et seq.

8 C.F.R. 274a.3.



6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Honorable Lawrence Johnson, District Court Judge of the Tenth Judicial

District granted Respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Appellant’s

workers’ compensation retaliation claim. Appellant seeks review of the dismissal.

Respondent cross-appealed to ensure all of the issues are before this Court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. Sanchez arrived in the United States in December 1998. (Nissen Affidavit,

Feb. 20, 2015, attaching Sanchez depo. p. 17). Mr. Sanchez is currently an illegal

alien. Id. at 37-38. Despite living here continuously for the past 16 years, Mr.

Sanchez has never applied with the United States government for proper

documentation allowing him to work legally. Id. at 18.

Mr. Sanchez has a social security number that he bought from somebody “out

and about”. Id. Mr. Sanchez got the invalid social security number so he could work.

Id. at 28. Mr. Sanchez furnished his false social security number to employers hoping

they would conclude he could legally work in the United States. Id. at 49-50; 53.

In early 2005, Dahlke decided to hire a body shop assistant. Dahlke Affidavit.

It contacted a local technical school to inquire about hiring one of its students. Id.

The school recommended Mr. Sanchez. Id.

When Mr. Sanchez applied to work at Dahlke, he did not tell them he was

unable to work legally in the United States. (Nissen Affidavit, Feb. 20, 2015,

attaching Sanchez depo. p. 64). Mr. Sanchez supplied Dahlke with his false social



7

security number. Id. at 65. He also supplied a copy of his Minnesota Driver’s license.

Dahlke Affidavit. In order to get hired by Dahlke, Mr. Sanchez represented he could

work legally in the United States. (Nissen Affidavit, Feb. 20, 2015, attaching Sanchez

depo. p. 67).

On September 23, 2013, Mr. Sanchez injured himself while operating a

sandblaster at work. Dahlke Affidavit. Dahlke drove Mr. Sanchez to the hospital and

filed a workers’ compensation claim with its insurer for him on September 25, 2013.

Monroe Affidavit; Plaintiff’s Memo. in Opp. to S.J. Ex 5 Sanchez depo. pp. 152-153.

After the accident, Mr. Sanchez missed some work. (Nissen Affidavit, Feb. 20,

2015, attaching Sanchez depo. p. 118). Although Mr. Sanchez eventually went back

to work, he was anxious to receive the workers’ compensation checks for the time he

missed. Id. He contacted the insurer and was told he must first send the bills for his

treatment before they could process the disability request. Id. Mr. Sanchez did not

know if the insurer was providing accurate information so he retained a lawyer. Id.

Mr. Sanchez, through his legal counsel, filed a workers’ compensation claim

petition on November 6, 2013. Dahlke Affidavit. The insurer retained defense

counsel and adjusted the claim. Id. The insurer paid Mr. Sanchez’ workers’

compensation benefits. Id. As part of the workers’ compensation proceeding, Mr.

Sanchez provided a sworn deposition on December 11, 2013, in which he admitted he

could not legally work in the United States. Id.



8

Mr. Dahlke and Mr. Smithers, both part owners of the business, later

confronted Mr. Sanchez with his deposition transcript. Id. Mr. Sanchez stated he did

not lie during his deposition. Id. Mr. Sanchez told Mr. Smithers to “do what you

have to do” at the conclusion of the brief meeting. Id.

Mr. Dahlke and Ms. Monroe, the company bookkeeper, met with Mr. Sanchez.

Id. They showed Mr. Sanchez copies of the documentation he previously provided

and asked if the documents were legitimate. Id. Mr. Sanchez pointed to the social

security card and said it was not good. Id. Mr. Dahlke asked Mr. Sanchez if he had

legitimate paperwork that he could supply. Id. Mr. Sanchez replied “no”. Id.

Dahlke decided to send Mr. Sanchez home (on unpaid leave) until he could

furnish the proper documentation. Id. On December 20, 2013, Mr. Sanchez signed a

letter acknowledging Dahlke placed him on unpaid leave. (Nissen Affidavit, Feb. 20,

2015 attaching Sanchez depo. p. 132). The document states:

Because you voluntarily told us that the social security card documentation you

provided us was not good and that you were not eligible to work in the United

States at this time, we are sending you home on an unpaid leave of absence.

Once you provide us with legitimate paperwork showing that you can legally

work in the United States, you can come back to work at Dahlke Trailer Sales.

Dahlke Affidavit Ex. A.

Mr. Sanchez returned to the shop during the last week of December to pick up

his tools. Id. This was the last time Mr. Sanchez appeared at the company. Id.

Mr. Sanchez settled his workers’ compensation claim and received his

payments. (Nissen Affidavit, Feb. 20, 2015, attaching Sanchez depo. p. 119). Mr.



9

Sanchez does not have any information to suggest that Dahlke interfered with his

application for workers’ compensation benefits. Id. at 122. Mr. Sanchez brought this

lawsuit because Dahlke placed him on leave. Id. at 141-142.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Mr. Sanchez asserts Dahlke violated Minnesota Statute 176.82 by placing him

on leave until he could furnish legitimate documentation showing he can work legally

in the United States. However, the clear wording of the statute only prohibits an

employer from discharging an employee, threatening to discharge an employee, or

intentionally obstructing an employee from seeking workers’ compensation benefits.

The uncontroverted facts show Dahlke did not violate the statutory prohibitions.

Dahlke did not discharge, threaten to discharge or obstruct Mr. Sanchez from seeking

workers’ compensation benefits. Mr. Sanchez’s invitation to this Court to ignore the

statute’s express language and substitute his own definition of what constitutes an

“adverse employment action” under this statute should be rejected.

Mr. Sanchez sued Dahlke for refusing to violate federal law. Federal law

subjects employers who knowingly hire, or continue to knowingly employ an

unauthorized worker, to hefty fines and penalties. Dahlke did not retaliate against Mr.

Sanchez for filing a workers’ compensation claim. It had no choice under federal law

but to place him on leave. Mr. Sanchez’s (unsuccessful) effort to establish a violation

of Minnesota Statute 176.82 is irrelevant in the face of federal legal requirements. If



10

Minnesota law runs contrary to the federal mandates, the state law is invalid under the

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Mr. Sanchez has obtained employment by using false documentation. Mr.

Sanchez is an undocumented illegal alien. Mr. Sanchez does not have a legal right in

a job he never should have obtained in the first place.

ARGUMENT

I. DAHLKE DID NOT VIOLATE MINNESOTA STATUTE 176.82

SUBD. 1 WHEN IT PLACED MR. SANCHEZ ON LEAVE.

In order to recover under Minnesota Statute 176.82 subd. 1, Mr. Sanchez must

prove Dahlke violated its provisions. The statute does not apply to all arguable

adverse employment actions. Rather the statute, by its express terms, is much

narrower. Minnesota Statute 176.82 prohibits an employer from discharging,

threatening to discharge or obstructing an employee from seeking workers’

compensation benefits. Dahlke did not violate the statute.

In Minnesota, courts analyze workers' compensation retaliation claims under

the framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817,

36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). See Randall v. Northern Milk Products, Inc., 519 N.W.2d

456 (Minn.App. 1994). A Plaintiff must first make a prima facie showing of

retaliation; the defendant must then articulate a legitimate reason for the discharge;

finally, the plaintiff must establish that the reason is pretextual. Id. at 459. In order to

establish a prima facie case, Mr. Sanchez must show all of the following: (1) he



11

engaged in a protected activity, (2) his employer subjected him to an adverse

employment action under the terms of the statute on which he is basing his claim, and

(3) a causal connection between the two.

Dahlke does not dispute Mr. Sanchez engaged in a protected activity under

Minn. Stat. 176.82 by seeking workers’ compensation benefits. However, Mr.

Sanchez cannot show he was subjected to an adverse employment action under the

statute (prong 2). Mr. Sanchez also conceded he cannot establish a causal connection

between the workers’ compensation claim and the alleged statutory violation (prong

3).

A. Mr. Sanchez cannot establish the second prong of his prima facie case.

Mr. Sanchez cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation because he was

not subjected to an adverse employment action as defined by the statute. Minnesota

Statute 176.82 prohibits an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, or

intentionally obstructing an employee from seeking workers’ compensation benefits.

Dahlke did not violate any of these provisions when it placed him on leave until he

can show he has a legal right to work in the United States.

1.

Dahlke Did Not Discharge Mr. Sanchez.

Mr. Sanchez admits Dahlke did not terminate him, but rather placed him on

unpaid leave (Nissen Affidavit, Feb. 20, 2015, attaching Sanchez depo. p. 130-132;

Appellant’s Brief p. 19). Mr. Sanchez admitted he commenced this lawsuit because

Dahlke placed him on leave. Id. at 141-142. Mr. Sanchez signed a form



12

acknowledging he was placed on unpaid leave because of his undocumented status.

Dahlke Affidavit Ex. A. Mr. Sanchez understands that if he provides Dahlke with

legitimate paperwork, he can start actively working for them again. (Nissen Affidavit,

Feb. 20, 2015, attaching Sanchez depo. p. 133-134). In other words, Mr. Sanchez still

has a job to go back to. Dahlke Affidavit Ex. A. He need not reapply, interview

again, and hope Dahlke considers him to be the strongest candidate. Id. Mr. Sanchez

just needs to obtain the proper documentation to work in the United States. Id.

This Court should reject Appellant’s attempt to rewrite and significantly

broaden the express provisions of Minnesota Statute 176.82. Mr. Sanchez’s desire for

an unpaid leave to constitute a violation of the statute and therefore qualify as an

“adverse employment action” is irrelevant. The express provisions of Minnesota

Statute 176.82 were passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor. An

alleged violation of the workers’ compensation statute is not a civil rights case (or a

whistleblower case where the statute contains its own unique prohibitions and factors

giving rise to a cause of action). Even if it were, “importing” language from other

statutes, in derogation of the Minnesota Statute 176.82’s express language, is not

“logical,” as Appellant suggests. (Appellant’s Brief p. 18). Such an approach would

violate the Constitution’s separation of powers and this Court’s mandate.1

1 When interpreting a statute, the Court’s goal is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of

the legislature. Minn. Stat. 645.16 (2012). When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the

Court’s task is limited to construing the words of the statute according to their plain and

ordinary meaning. Schatz v. Interfaith Care Ctr., 811 N.W.2d 643, 649 (Minn. 2012).

When the words of the law are clear, the plain meaning controls and will not be “disregarded



13

2. Dahlke Did Not Threaten to Discharge Mr. Sanchez for Filing a

Workers’ Compensation Claim.

There is nothing in the record showing Mr. Sanchez was threatened with

termination if he filed a workers compensation claim. In fact, Dahlke drove Mr.

Sanchez to the hospital and filed the workers’ compensation claim with its insurer on

his behalf. Monroe Affidavit; Dahlke Affidavit; Sanchez depo. pp. 152-153.

3.

Dahlke Did Not Intentionally Obstruct Mr. Sanchez From Seeking

Workers’ Compensation Benefits.

Mr. Sanchez concedes he does not have any evidence that Dahlke obstructed

him from seeking workers’ compensation benefits. (Nissen Affidavit, Feb. 20, 2015,

attaching Sanchez depo. p. 122). Again, Dahlke filed Mr. Sanchez’s workers’

compensation claim for him. Monroe Affidavit; Dahlke Affidavit.

Appellant’s apparent request to rewrite, expand, and soften what constitutes an

actionable adverse employment action under the “intentional obstruction” portion of

Minnesota Statute 176.82 (to include actions which might “dissuade” a worker from

seeking benefits), runs afoul of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Bergeson

v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 414 N.W.2d 724, 727 (Minn. 1987). In Bergeson,

the Court explicitly stated,

We conclude, therefore, that a cause of action under section 176.82 lies where a

person, such as an insurer, obstructs or hinders, whether by deliberate action or

inaction, the receipt of benefits due the injured worker and does so in a manner

under the pretext of pursuing the spirit of the law”. Sleiter v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 868

N.W.2d 21, 24 (Minn. 2015).



14

that is outrageous and extreme, or, to put it another way, in a matter which is

egregiously cruel or venal. We hold, further, that this conduct must be proven

by evidence that is clear and convincing. Id. at 727.

Simply put, the Minnesota Supreme Court set a very high threshold for what

conduct constitutes a violation of the statute which is flatly contrary to the

significantly lesser threshold Appellant would prefer this Court adopt.

Based on these undisputed facts, the District Court made a legal determination

that Dalhke’s decision did not constitute an adverse employment action under

Minnesota Statute 176.82. SANCHEZ ADD006.

The District Court’s decision was further bolstered by the fact Dahlke’s actions

were in keeping with actions taken by the employer in Rivas v. Car Wash Partners,

which the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals upheld. The District

Court noted:

In Rivas, an undocumented worker was injured on the job. The car wash placed the worker on leave after discovering that the worker did not have

documentation to work in the United States. The car wash told the employee

that he could return to active duty once he provided proof he could legally work

in the United States. The court noted that employers cannot legally employ

unauthorized aliens, therefore, “it was not only reasonable, but in keeping with

policies underlying the IRCA, for the employer to have conditioned” its offer to

return the employee to active duty on proof of the employee’s eligibility to

work in the United States. (Sanchez ADD005).

B.

Mr. Sanchez cannot establish the third prong of his prima facie case.

As part of his prima facie case, Mr. Sanchez must also establish a causal

connection between his seeking workers’ compensation benefits and the alleged

statutory violation. Mr. Sanchez cannot satisfy this requirement either. Dahlke did



15

not retaliate against Mr. Sanchez for seeking workers’ compensation benefits.

Moreover, Mr. Sanchez conceded he was placed on leave because of his

illegal/undocumented status, not because he chose to seek workers’ compensation

benefits.

Dahlke was required by federal law to send Mr. Sanchez home (on unpaid

leave) until he could furnish the proper documentation. (See Section II below). Since

Dahlke did not have any choice but to place Mr. Sanchez on leave, it makes no

difference whether it was upset with him or not. Either way the result is the same, Mr.

Sanchez could not continue active employment

In addition, Mr. Sanchez has no proof that Dahlke disapproved of his workers’

compensation claim (which it filed on his behalf). Mr. Sanchez’s assertion that Mr.

Smithers was upset by his decision to hire any attorney months after the claim was

filed is irrelevant. (Nissen Affidavit, Feb. 20, 2015, attaching Sanchez depo. p. 151,

153). The statute protects employees from retaliation for seeking benefits, not for

hiring an attorney months later, particularly when the employee gets his benefits and

there is no evidence the employer attempted to obstruct them.

Moreover, Mr. Sanchez previously injured himself on the job at Dahlke.

Monroe Affidavit. Mr. Sanchez sought and received workers’ compensation benefits.

Id. Mr. Sanchez does not claim Dahlke retaliated against him for filing that workers’

compensation claim. (Nissen Affidavit, Feb. 20, 2015, attaching Sanchez depo. p.

106).



16

Finally, Mr. Sanchez conceded during his deposition he was placed on leave

due to his illegal/undocumented status and not his workers’ compensation claim. On

December 20, 2013, Mr. Sanchez signed a letter acknowledging Dahlke placed him

on unpaid leave. (Nissen Affidavit, Feb. 20, 2015, attaching Sanchez depo. p. 132).

The document states:

Because you voluntarily told us that the social security card documentation you

provided us was not good and that you were not eligible to work in the United

States at this time, we are sending you home on an unpaid leave of absence.

Once you provide us with legitimate paperwork showing that you can legally

work in the United States, you can come back to work at Dahlke Trailer Sales.

On January 3, 2014, Mr. Sanchez informed his workers’ compensation

rehabilitation consultant, Kristen Engelke, that he was no longer working for Dahlke

“for reasons unrelated to his work comp injury”. Id. at 143. Mr. Sanchez testified he

told Ms. Engelke the truth. Id. at 142. It was a true statement. Id. at 144.

Mr. Sanchez also told the workers’ compensation medical doctor in January

2014, that he had not worked since the date of his (September 2013) accident because

he did not have appropriate legal documentation with respect to working in this

country. Id. at 147. Mr. Sanchez provided one additional explanation for why he had

not worked for the prior four months. Id. His leg was “not well”. Id.

Based on the undisputed facts, the District Court correctly held, “Even though

Plaintiff’s leave from Dahlke happened during the pendency of his workers’

compensation benefit litigation, there is no dispute of material fact that the reason



17

Plaintiff is no longer working at Dahlke is because he cannot legally do so under

federal immigration law”. Sanchez ADD006.

II.

MR. SANCHEZ CANNOT MAINTAIN A CAUSE OF ACTION

UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE 176.82 FOR REFUSING TO

CONTINUE TO ACTIVELY EMPLOY HIM IN VIOLATION OF

FEDERAL LAW.

Mr. Sanchez is suing Dahlke for placing him on leave. Mr. Sanchez is an

illegal/undocumented immigrant. Mr. Sanchez does not have a legal right to

continued active duty employment in a job he never should have had the job in the

first place. Moreover, federal law prohibits employers from knowingly hiring, or

continuing to knowingly employ undocumented workers. Any Minnesota law that

purports to require an employer to violate federal law by continuing to actively

employ an illegal alien is unenforceable. In the unlikely event the Court concludes

Dahlke violated Minnesota Statute 176.82, Mr. Sanchez’s claim is preempted by

federal law.

The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause provides that the laws and treaties of the

United States shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the laws of any State to

the contrary notwithstanding. U.S. Constitution Article VI, cl. 2. Accordingly, it has

long been settled that state laws that conflict with federal law have no effect. Mutual

Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett , 133 S.Ct. 2466, L.Ed2d 607 (2013). Even in the

absence of an express pre-emption provision, the Court has found state law to be



18

impliedly pre-empted where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both

the state and federal requirements. Id.

Mr. Sanchez alleges state law prohibited Dahlke from placing him on leave

despite the fact he could not document his right to work in the United States. If

Dahlke complied with Mr. Sanchez’ (incorrect) reading of the state law, it would

violate federal law. (See 8 U.S.C 1324a(e)(4), 1324a(a)(1), and (2), 1324a(e)(5),

1324a(f), and Immigration & Nationality Act 274(a) et seq., 8 C.F.R. 274a.3 and 8

C.F.R. 274a.10 making it illegal to employ illegal aliens and providing employers

who knowingly employ unauthorized aliens are subject to civil and criminal

sanctions). Therefore, if Mr. Sanchez has correctly interpreted the requirements of

Minnesota law (which he has not), the Minnesota law is null under the Supremacy

Clause.

Mr. Sanchez’s continued reliance on Correa v. Waymouth Farms, Inc., 664

N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 2003) is misplaced. The District Court correctly analyzed that

decision in its Order granting Dahlke’s motion for summary judgment. The District

Court recognized there was no conflict between the federal and state law in that case.

In Correa, the plaintiff, an undocumented worker, was injured on the job.

Waymouth Farms terminated plaintiff after learning of his illegal status and

attempted to avoid paying him temporary total disability benefits worker’scompensation benefits. The plaintiff did not challenge his termination. He did

not argue the employer had a continuing obligation to actively employ him.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the Minnesota Workers’

Compensation act allowed the award of temporary total disability benefits to

the employee, and nothing in the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act

(IRCA) specifically prohibited it. Id. at 330. The Correa Court did not hold



19

that employers must continue to employ undocumented workers after they are

injured on the job. The IRCA does specifically prohibit employers from

knowingly employing unauthorized aliens. See 8 U.S.C. 1324a(e)(4),

1324a(e)(5), and 1324a(f)(2012). Sanchez ADD005.

Appellant incorrectly argues that it would be “paradoxical” to conclude that

undocumented workers are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits but are not

entitled to the anti-reprisal protections of that statute. (Appellant’s Brief p. 12). First,

Appellant’s argument is irrelevant because Dahlke did not violate the anti-reprisal

protections of that statute. (See Section I above). Second, Appellant chooses to

ignore the federal law as well as the holdings in Correa and Rivas. The reason

undocumented workers are entitled to certain workers compensation benefits, such as

medical expenses, is because those workers are covered by the Minnesota Workers’

Compensation Act and to award such benefits would not violate federal law. In sharp

contrast, requiring employers to continue to actively employ undocumented workers

would violate federal law.

Appellant incorrectly argues that if illegal or undocumented workers who are

placed on leave until they obtain the required documentation are not able to sue under

Minnesota Statute 176.82, would “incentivize” employers to hire undocumented

workers and “retaliate” against them. (Appellant’s Brief p. 15). Appellant’s

argument ignores the fact federal law subjects employers who violate IRCA to hefty

fines and penalties. Therefore, it is not necessary to create a new cause of action for



20

illegal and undocumented aliens who are placed on leave until they have proper

documentation in order to address Appellant’s concerns.

Finally, appellant attempts to reconcile IRCA with Minnesota Statute 176.82 by

claiming IRCA’s prohibitions apply only at the moment the employer discovers an

employee is undocumented. However, Appellant does not cite any authority to back

up its odd conclusion. IRCA prohibits not only the hiring of undocumented workers,

but continuing to actively employ them. Therefore, the employer is not excused from

IRCA’s requirements after discovering it was duped and defrauded by an illegal

worker. The fact IRCA contains a continuing obligation for employers who violate

the law to bring themselves into compliance, topples Appellant’s unsupported position

that the application of the laws are somehow staggered.

CONCLUSION

Appellant’s case fails for two independent and dispositive reasons. First,

Dahlke did not violate the provisions of Minnesota Statute 176.82. Second, even if

the Court should conclude to the contrary, Minnesota Statute 176.82 is pre-empted by

federal law under the facts of this case. As a result, Respondent/Cross-Appellant



21

respectfully requests that the Court affirm the lower court’s award of summary

judgment.

DRAWE & MALAND

Dated: December 15, 2015

Todd L. Nissen, MN No. 25017X

Attorney for Respondent

7701 France Avenue, Suite 240

Edina, MN 55435

Phone: (952) 841-2145


Date post:	22-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	joshua-newville
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

2015.12.15. Sanchez v. Dahlke. Respondent's Brief

Documents