Discussion questions

Date and Time: Thursday, February 16, 2023 8:53:00PM ESTJob Number: 190566881
Document (1)
1. Perri v. Case, 208 A.D.3d 1046
Client/Matter: -NoneSearch Terms: civil case doing business today supreme court in New York
Search Type: Natural Language
Narrowed by:
Content Type
Cases
Narrowed by
Timeline: Previous 2 Years (After February 17, 2021)
| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2023 LexisNexis
Cited
As of: February 17, 2023 1:53 AM Z
Perri v. Case
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
August 4, 2022, Decided; August 4, 2022, Entered
560 CA 21-01255
Reporter
208 A.D.3d 1046 *; 173 N.Y.S.3d 785 **; 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4707 ***; 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 ****
and/or renew was actually one for leave to reargue only,
and no appeal lay from an order denying such a motion.
[****1] MICHAEL PERRI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v MARK CASE, DOING BUSINESS AS CASE’S MINI
STORAGE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.)
Outcome
Judgment affirmed.
LexisNexis® Headnotes
Notice: THE PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE
FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION.
THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO
REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS.
Prior History: [***1] Appeal from an order and judgment
(one paper) of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (J.
Scott Odorisi, J.), entered August 10, 2021. The order
and judgment, among other things, granted in part the
motion of plaintiff for summary judgment.
Core Terms
right of first refusal, terms, lease
Case Summary
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-The supreme court did not err in
granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his
breach of contract and declaratory judgment causes of
action because it was undisputed that, prior to the
prospective sale to the purchasing defendants, defendant
seller failed to notify plaintiff of the prospective sale as
required under the agreement, including its specific
terms, and thus failed to extend to plaintiff the opportunity
to exercise his right of first refusal; [2]-Since defendants
failed to offer new facts that were unavailable at the time
of plaintiff’s prior motion, the motion for leave to reargue
Business & Corporate Compliance > … > Contracts
Law > Contract Formation > Right of First Refusal
Real Property Law > Purchase & Sale > Option
Contracts > Rights of First Refusal
HN1[
] Contract Formation, Right of First Refusal
A right of first refusal is a right to receive an offer, and the
grantor’s failure or refusal to extend the holder the
opportunity to exercise the right constitutes a breach. A
rightholder may be familiar with the broad contours of the
grantor’s transaction with a third party, but may
nevertheless be handicapped in exercising the right
when there is no specific offer from the grantor.
Contracts Law > Statute of
Frauds > Requirements > Signatures
Real Property Law > Purchase & Sale > Option
Contracts > Rights of First Refusal
Contracts Law > Statute of
Frauds > Requirements > Writings
Real Property Law > … > Contracts of
Page 3 of 4
Perri v. Case
Sale > Enforceability > Statute of Frauds
Real Property Law > Deeds > Defenses Against
Deed Enforcement > Statute of Frauds
HN2[
] Requirements, Signatures
A right of first refusal is subject to the statute of frauds,
which provides that a contract for the sale of any real
property, or an interest therein, is void unless the contract
or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the
consideration, is in writing, subscribed by the party to be
charged, General Obligations Law § 5-703[2].
Counsel: REFERMAT HURWITZ & DANIEL PLLC,
ROCHESTER (JOHN T. REFERMAT OF COUNSEL),
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANTIAGO BURGER LLP, ROCHESTER (FERNANDO
SANTIAGO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFRESPONDENT.
Judges: PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA,
LINDLEY, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
Opinion
[**786] [*1047] It is hereby ORDERED that the order
and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed
without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement
with defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case’s
Mini Storage (Case), in which plaintiff held a right of first
refusal to purchase the leased premises. Under the terms
of that lease provision, Case was obligated to notify
plaintiff in writing of the terms of any bona fide offer Case
received for the property. Plaintiff thereafter had 10
business days to purchase the property on terms
identical to those offered by the third party. Plaintiff
commenced this action to enforce that contractual right
after Case allegedly entered into a purchase
agreement [***2] for the property with defendants Brian
and Jeffrey Cook (Cook defendants) without notifying
plaintiff of the terms of that agreement and without
offering plaintiff the right of first refusal. In appeal No. 1,
Case appeals from an order and judgment that, inter alia,
granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his
causes of action for breach of contract and declaratory
judgment and on his cause of action for specific
performance to the extent that it sought to compel Case
to convey a purchase offer to him. In appeal No. 2, Case
and the Cook defendants (collectively, defendants)
separately appeal from an order denying Case’s motion,
joined by the Cook defendants, for “leave to reargue
and/or renew” their opposition to plaintiff’s motion. In
appeal No. 3, defendants separately appeal from an
order that, inter alia, granted in part plaintiff’s motion
seeking to hold Case in contempt—i.e., for failing to
comply with the order and judgment in appeal No. 1—by
granting that motion to the extent that it sought to hold
Case in civil contempt.
Addressing first appeal No. 1, we note as an initial matter
that the record does not contain a notice of appeal from
the order and judgment with [***3] respect to the Cook
defendants and, thus, the Cook defendants’ contentions
pertaining to the order and judgment are not properly
before us (see GRJH, Inc. v 3680 Props., Inc., 179 AD3d
1177, 1178, 116 N.Y.S.3d 437 [3d Dept 2020]; Hageman
v Santasiero, 277 AD2d 1049, 1049-1050, 716 N.Y.S.2d
485 [4th Dept 2000]; see also Gassab v R.T.R.L.L.C., 69
AD3d 511, 512, 893 N.Y.S.2d 540 [1st Dept 2010]; see
generally 22 NYCRR 1250.7 [b] [4]).
[*1048] We reject Case’s contention that Supreme
Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment on his breach of contract and declaratory
judgment causes of action against Case and on the
specific performance cause of action to the extent that it
sought to compel Case to convey a purchase offer to him.
HN1[ ] “A right of first refusal is a right to receive an
offer, and the [****2] grantor’s failure or refusal to extend
the holder the opportunity to exercise the right constitutes
a breach” (Cipriano v Glen Cove Lodge #1458, B.P.O.E.,
1 NY3d 53, 60, 801 N.E.2d 388, 769 N.Y.S.2d 168
[2003]). “A rightholder may be [**787] familiar with the
broad contours of the grantor’s transaction with a third
party, but may nevertheless be handicapped in
exercising the right when there is no specific offer from
the grantor” (id.). Here, plaintiff submitted in the support
of his motion the lease agreement containing the right of
first refusal provision requiring Case to give plaintiff the
right of first refusal in the event of a sale of the property.
Moreover, it is undisputed that, prior to the prospective
sale to the Cook defendants, [***4] Case failed to notify
plaintiff of the prospective sale as required under the
agreement, including its specific terms, and thus failed to
extend to plaintiff the opportunity to exercise his right of
first refusal. Thus, we conclude that, contrary to Case’s
contention, plaintiff met his initial burden on his motion of
establishing that Case breached the terms of the right of
first refusal of the lease agreement (see generally id.;
Amalfi, Inc. v 428 Co., Inc., 153 AD3d 1610, 1611, 61
N.Y.S.3d 434 [4th Dept 2017]; Alford v Estate of Wrench,
Page 4 of 4
Perri v. Case
172 AD2d 965, 966, 568 N.Y.S.2d 483 [3d Dept 1991], lv
denied 78 NY2d 858 [1991]). In opposition, Case failed
to raise a triable issue of fact. To the extent that Case
contends that he raised triable issues of fact whether
plaintiff waived the right of first refusal by sending a
nonconforming offer after he apparently learned of the
Cook defendants’ purchase offer and whether plaintiff
was ready, willing and able to perform, we reject those
contentions. Inasmuch as plaintiff was not afforded the
notice and offer as required from Case in the first
instance, Case’s submissions do not raise a triable issue
of fact in those respects (see generally Horst v City of
Syracuse, 191 AD3d 1297, 1301, 141 N.Y.S.3d 205 [4th
Dept 2021]).
1508, 954 N.Y.S.2d 366 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 21
NY3d 851 [2013]). We reject Case’s contention that the
court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to the extent that
it sought to hold Case in civil contempt. Plaintiff
established by clear and convincing evidence that there
was a lawful and unequivocal court order that required
Case to extend plaintiff an offer to purchase the property;
that Case disobeyed the order; that Case had knowledge
of the order; and that plaintiff was prejudiced by Case’s
failure to comply with the order (see El-Dehdan v ElDehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d
340 [2015]; Riccelli Enters., Inc. v State of N.Y. Workers’
Compensation Bd., 142 AD3d 1352, 1353-1354, 38
N.Y.S.3d 316 [4th Dept 2016]).
Case also failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether
the right of first refusal is void for lack of consideration or
ambiguity in its terms. HN2[ ] A right of first refusal is
subject [***5] to the statute of frauds, which provides that
“[a] contract . . . for the sale . . . of any real property, or
an interest therein, is void unless the contract or some
note or memorandum thereof, expressing the
consideration, is in writing, subscribed by the party to be
charged” (General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]). Contrary
to Case’s contention, the lease agreement’s preamble
recited the [*1049] consideration to be given by plaintiff,
which covered the right of first refusal clause (see
generally Martin v Seeley, 191 AD3d 1335, 1337-1338,
142 N.Y.S.3d 252 [4th Dept 2021]; Loika v Howard, 103
AD2d 874, 875, 477 N.Y.S.2d 919 [3d Dept 1984]), and
the right of first refusal was unambiguous as to Case’s
obligation to provide the written offer (see generally First
Am. Commercial Bancorp, Inc. v Saatchi & Saatchi
Rowland, Inc., 55 AD3d 1264, 1266, 865 N.Y.S.2d 424
[4th Dept 2008], lv denied in part and dismissed in part
12 NY3d 829 [2009]).
Entered: August 4, 2022
We conclude that appeal No. 2 must be dismissed (see
Angelhow v Chahfe, 174 AD3d 1285, 1288, 104 N.Y.S.3d
498 [4th Dept 2019]). Although the motion at issue in that
appeal sought “leave to reargue and/or renew” with
respect to plaintiff’s prior motion for summary judgment,
defendants failed to offer new facts that were unavailable
at the time of plaintiff’s prior motion. Thus, the motion for
“leave to reargue and/or renew” was actually one for
leave to reargue only, and no appeal lies from an order
denying such a motion (see id.; Hill v Milan, 89 AD3d
1458, 1458, 932 N.Y.S.2d 411 [4th Dept 2011]).
Finally, in appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants’ appeal
must be dismissed inasmuch as they are not aggrieved
by [***6] the order in that appeal (see CPLR 5511;
Matter of Guck v [**788] Prinzing, 100 AD3d 1507,
End of Document
Week 7 Discussion
Question 1
Read Chapter 3 – The Judicial System
Answer and discuss the following:
• Define and explain what personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction
mean and how these terms are relevant to one who does business in different
states.
• Using the legal database, research a case in your home state supreme
court that deals with an important state issue and provide the facts of
the case, the holding and decision and the law. Consider – did you agree
or disagree with the ruling and why? Please do not post a criminal
case example, only civil case issues that deal with doing business
today. Use the link provided to the NEXIS-Uni Legal
Database: https://libdatab.strayer.edu/login?url=https://www.nexisun
i.com
Be sure to respond to at least one of your classmates’ posts.
Please be sure answers are researched, informed, and substantiated by citing
sources used at the bottom of your discussion post. See the Strayer Writing
Standards link in BB for help following citation requirements.
Question 2
WEEK 7 ASSIGNMENT – LEGAL LIABILITY AND THE GIG ECONOMY
Week 7 Assignment – Legal Liability and the Gig Economy
Focus on agency law Chapter 16 of the textbook
(Business Its Legal and Global Environment)
Overview
In this assignment, you analyze a business scenario to summarize the principles of
agency law, recommend steps to limit liability, and determine the circumstances under
which a business might be liable for employee conduct.
Ride-sharing companies are largely hailed as the advent of the gig economy, which is
the idea that people do not work as permanent employees for one employer but instead
work in a labor market characterized by short-term contracts or freelance work. While
creating a new type of entrepreneurship for individuals, a gig economy raises a host of
new legal questions about the law of agency for companies utilizing gig workers.
Scenario
Widgets operate a ride-sharing business with over 100 drivers. Your boss has asked
you to evaluate Widgets’ legal exposure for the conduct of its drivers. Several drivers
have had accidents, and one driver was arrested for driving while intoxicated when
providing a ride for a company client. Widgets have no policy for hiring or checking
backgrounds and, for some drivers, allow the use of four company vehicles for
transporting large groups.
Instructions
Consider the above scenario and complete a 3–4 page memo in which you do the
following:
1.
2.
3.
Summarize the main principles of agency law relevant to the scenario.
Identify and accurately explain the liability to the business in the scenario by considering each of the
following factors:
•
The scope of employment.
• Agents acting as an employee versus an independent contractor.
• When agents commit an intentional tort versus negligence.
Recommend 2–3 significant steps that the business should take to limit its legal exposure related to
driver conduct. Support your recommendation.
Note: Remember, you are demonstrating your understanding of the law, so explain the
law first and then answer the questions of the assignment. Be informative and show
what you know! Provide references from credible and reputable legal sources.
Requirements
Your memo should:
•
•
Be typed, double-spaced, in Times New Roman font (size 12), with 1-inch margins on all sides.
Include a source page (not a part of the page count requirement) and have a cover page that uses the
following format:
LEGAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Boss
FROM: Your Name
RE: Legal Liability and the Gig Economy
Resources
•
•
Use the Strayer Library to conduct your research.
In addition to your textbook, you have access to Nexus Uni through the Strayer Library. You are
encouraged to use the Strayer Library to conduct your research. The textbook for this class is a
required source for this assignment.
This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and
information, please refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of
your course. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is as follows:
•
Establish what liability concerns exist for a specific business based on agency law.
This is the Reference for the case
Perri v. Case, 208 A.D.3d 1046, 173 N.Y.S.3d 785, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4707, 2022 NY Slip Op
04872 (Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth DepartmentAugust 4, 2022,
Entered). https://advance-lexis-
com.libdatab.strayer.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:6632-VHK1F06F-20YT-00000-00&context=1516831.
Question 3 extra point
My state is New York
FROM THE PROFESSOR…STRUCTURE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM – FEDERAL AND STATE
Good morning again, Grad Students. Being familiar with our present court system
is important for a business executive. One reason is it helps to understand where
you have to sue someone in your home state and what court specifically and also, it
helps to understand the process and procedures of litigation. See the setup of the
US Federal court systems below and my home state, Michigan. Notice for
Michigan courts – what “subject-matter jurisdiction” each court has and see if you
can find a diagram with smj information for your home state and post it here as
well for an extra + 5 points this week.
Professor’s example of her state
Federal Court
overview
Federal Appellate Courts of Appeal
13
(If I was to lose in a federal trial court in Michigan
I
would appeal to the 6th Circuit
Court of Appeals)
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM
(notice the types of cases each court hears (smj)
Teachers Notes
WELCOME TO WEEK 7
Good morning, Graduate Students and hope you have a great Monday. I can’t
believe we are already in Week 7 of the class. I hope you have learned a lot and, if
you are struggling – let’s talk this week.
Our discussion focuses around the Judicial System and the court structure. There
is a lot of terminology that you have seen already and some new so do your best. It
is really important to have an understanding of both the federal court system and
your own state court system. When you read case law and especially when you are
suing or being sued, you need to know what court you are in and that each court
has different “jurisdiction” or power over the type of case it hears and the parties
that stand before it.
Case examples provide the court you are in and what happens throughout the
history of the case. For example, if you are reading a United States Supreme
Court case, you know a case was tried at the District Court level, appealed to
one of 12 Appellate Courts and ultimately, appealed again to the Supreme
Court. The decision by the Supreme Court will be binding on the lower court
decisions in regards to that issue.
Why is this important? The type of Court is very important. It is deciding the
law that governs your business on a particular issue or situation. Also, the
jurisdiction or “area” you are in may be more conducive to a favorable jury for
your business or for the plaintiff who is suing. Within some states, there
are “pockets” of counties, cities, etc. that are more favorable for businesses to
litigate their cases in. Lastly, the court will determine what judge you might
be facing – again, there are some judges that are more favorable to plaintiffs
versus defendant companies and vice versa. A good attorney would know
this.
Check out the reading this week and let’s discuss in the discussion
thread. Remember to look for your home state supreme court cases and, focus on
business and civil law, not criminal. If you need help – please let me know. Please
check your grade book and, if you have not yet submitted Week 5 paper – that is
your priority this week! No worries, there are lots of points remaining but it is
important to do well from here on to pass the class successfully. Be well and hope
you have a great week ahead.
Example Of Case for this week discussion
FROM THE PROFESSOR…CASE EXAMPLE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT
5
Good afternoon, Graduate Students. See my case example this week from the
Michigan Supreme Court and its decision interpreting a contract law
term. Remember when looking in the database – be sure to find a civil dispute
between private parties. If the case name is [State v. defendant] or even [People v.
defendant] – it is probably a criminal matter. First, look to be sure you are in your
state’s supreme court and then, browse for civil actions between two private
parties. Let me know if you need help.
My search was:
[Lichon v. Morse]
Supreme Court of Michigan, July 2021
FACTS:
• Plaintiff secretary sued her bosses, the defendants, for sexual harassment in
violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of Michigan (ELCRA – is the
equivalent of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII).
• Plaintiff worked from 2015 to 2017 when she was terminated. She alleged
throughout her employment, she was sexual harassed by defendant Morse
and sexually assaulted on several occasions.
• Plaintiff filed suit and defendants moved to dismiss and compel arbitration
based on the company’s “Mandatory Dispute Resolution Procedure”
agreement which plaintiff signed upon being hired. (Many companies will
require employees to sign a contract agreeing to arbitrate employment
disputes rather than suing in a court of law).
TRIAL COURT: Found for defendant’ motion to dismiss the case and require
arbitration per the agreement. Plaintiff appealed this decision.
APPELLATE COURT: Affirmed
SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN: Reversed.
WHY?
The court must determine whether the plaintiff’s claims fall under the scope of the
arbitration agreement she signed. The arbitration contract reads, “…. agreement is
limited to matters that are “relative” to the plaintiff’s employment.”
The court looks to the principles of contract law interpretation. Why? Because an
arbitration agreement is a contract. Thus, to “ascertain the intent of the parties at
the time of the agreement,” as to whether a claim of sexual harassment was to be
part of the arbitration contract. The court concluded – it did not.
Why not? When contract language includes terms like “limited to” this means it
is limited to certain employment actions. Certainly, engaging in sexual harassment
is not within the “scope of the plaintiff’s employment” and therefore an actionable
item limited to arbitration.
Source:
1.
[Lichon v. Morse], 507 Mich. 424, 968 N.W.2d 461, 2021 Mich. LEXIS 1284,
2021 WL 3044458 (Supreme Court of Michigan July 20, 2021,
Filed). https://advance-lexiscom.libdatab.strayer.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:content
Item:636F-PGN1-JTNR-M2JT-00000-00&context=1516831.
Thank you, Tanzy and good afternoon, I hope you are having a good Wednesday.
Tonight is our live class, I hope you will join us.
You provided a good case here, especially to point out the duty of care a business
owner has to “invitee’s” to their property. See the law below as to each type of
person that might venture onto one’s property. This is the same for your home or
business property.
• In tort law, a landowner owes an invitee a duty of care that his land is free
from dangerous conditions that the landowner knows or should know,
through reasonable inspection, would pose a danger to the invitee.
• In tort law, a landowner owes a licensee (a person who have received
expressed or implied permission to enter the owned land, like a delivery man
or mailcarrier) a duty of care that his land is free dangerous conditions that
the landowner knows or should know, would pose a danger to the licensee.
• In tort law, a landowner owes no duty of care to a trespasser and no liability
to exercise reasonable care to make their land safe unless…the landowner
creates artificial conditions which are highly dangerous
to anticipated trespassers, i.e., known trespassers the landowner reasonably
knows about.
Reply Quote Email Author
8 hours ago
LORI BAGGOT INSTRUCTOR MANAGER
FROM THE PROFESSOR…VERIFYING EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY
COLLAPSE
Overall Rating:
Good afternoon, Grad Students. It is Wednesday – I hope your week is going
well. See the US Supreme Court case example case below and how the
decision effects business and doing business today. This is an important case
for business owners because it demonstrates the importance of verifying
employment and the ability to legally work in the United States and really
outlines the process and law as to what is required by the federal government.
You should remember this information…😉.
[KANSAS v. GARCIA]
Argued October 16, 2019—Decided March 3, 2020
Facts: The state of Kansas makes it a crime to commit “identity theft” or engage
in fraud to obtain a benefit. The defendants (three) were unauthorized aliens in the
United States and each used the same social security number on their I-9 form to
work illegally in the state of Kansas. ([Kansas v. Garcia], 1)
To work legally, an employee must fill out an I-9 form which is a federal
employment verification form. Employers must provide the form (i-9) to potential
employees and by submitting the form, the employer is, per the law, “verifying to
the federal government that they have examined approved documents like a
green card or work authorization card and that the potential employee is not
“an unauthorized alien” who is not legally allowed to work.” (Supreme Court,
2) By filling out and signing an I-9, an employee is also attesting that the
information is true and an employer is verifying they checked.
The defendant’s each used the same social security number and were convicted of
identity theft and fraud by the state of Kansas because they were not authorized to
work legally in the United States. The state charged each with a crime and they
appealed their convictions arguing that the information used to convict, thus the
information, and their illegally, on the form was “illegally used and obtained by the
state” in violation of federal law. The premise of their argument was based on the
notion that we do not want information on an I-9 form to be used in a prejudicial
way by the state or even by employers. (1)
Trial Court: Convicted the defendants
Appellate Court of Kansas: Affirmed the conviction
Supreme Court of Kansas: Reversed – Why? Argued the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1986 expressly prohibits a State from using “any information”
contained within an I–9 as the basis for a state law identity theft prosecution of an
alien who uses another’s Social Security information on an I–9. Thus, the federal
law preempts Kansas criminal law in this case.
Supreme Court of the United States: Reversed. Why?
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it unlawful
to hire an alien knowing that he or she is unauthorized to work in the United
States. 8 U. S. C. §§1324a(a)(1), (h)(3). (USDHS, 3)
IRCA’s focus applies to employers who recruit and hire those who are not
authorized to work in the United States. This does not preempt any state from
making it a crime to falsify and use false documents for unauthorized work in the
state. The Court wrote, “The theory that no information placed on an I–9 could
ever be used by any entity or person for any reason – other than the handful of
federal statutes mentioned in §1324a(b)(5)—is contrary to standard English
usage” (1).
In other words, just because the federal law on immigration reads, “it is unlawful
to use I-9 information for anything other than federal prosecution…” does not
mean the state of Kansas cannot use the actual false information to prosecute for a
state crime. “The sole function of that system (federal verification system) is to
establish that an employee is not barred from working in this country” (1). The
protection was to prevent employers from discriminating against potential hires
who indicated they were not US citizens in this country, not from the state using
fraudulent information to prosecute someone.
How is this case applicable to the “regulation of business or likely to influence
business today?”
This case helps to illustrate both the law requirements for employers today as to
the federal verification system, the Immigration Reform and Control Act and the
process to which it works. Every employer must provide an I-9 form to a
potential hire and, submit the form to the federal government making assurances
that the information is verified and accurate and, the documentation shown to the
employer verifies the employment eligibility of the potential hire. By submitting
an I-9 form, and attesting to the validity – an employer is complying with federal
law consistent with immigration law. (3)
IRCA requires an employer PERSONALLY INSPECT original documents to
verify identify and work authorization. This includes a US passport and/or green
card. If one does not have either, the potential hire can provide a driver’s license or
US ID card and then MUST ALSO provide another ID like a social security card.
What are the penalties to an employer for non-compliance?
Failure to follow can result in civil and criminal penalties from $250 to $5,500 per
undocumented worker. If an employer knowingly hires or employs someone
unauthorized to work in the US, the employer could be suspended from doing
business with the government and financially fined and face federal prosecution
(3).
This case helps to demonstrate how a state can prosecute an employee for fraud for
failing to adhere to the requirements of federal law. It also illustrates that the
federal government enforces immigration law and legal hiring on
businesses when it comes to those who are legal and illegally trying to work in
the United States. And, the process and procedures required by
businesses today when it comes verifying employment.
SOURCES:
1. [Kansas v. Garcia], 2019, 306 Kan. 1113, 401 P. 3d 588 (first judgment); 306
Kan. 1100, 401 P. 3d 155 (second judgment); and 306 Kan. 1107, 401 P. 3d 159
(third judgment), reversed and remanded. Retrieved November 15, 2022
from https://advance-lexiscom.libdatab.strayer.edu/document/?pdmfid=1516831&crid=fdda86a7-5c494300-82f99a7412f7c67c&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3A
contentItem%3A5YBH-R8N1-DXHD-G4BX-0000000&pdcontentcomponentid=6443&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5YBPHWS1-J9X5-W4R5-0000000&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=tzg2k&earg=sr0&prid=48b4da70
-630b-4d5c-82ad-c1a132568893
2. [Kansas v. Garcia], 589 U.S. March (2020). Retrieved February 15, 2023
from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-834_k53l.pdf
3. United States Department of Homeland Security. Immigration and Nationality
Act. Retrieved February 15, 2023 from https://www.congress.gov/bill/99thcongress/senate-bill/1200.