Business Law Question

READING FOR CHAPT 10

Lesson 10 Commentary

Twomey & Greene Text Readings:

Chapter 4

Section 4:17, Treatment of Undocumented Aliens, pp. 135–136

Hoffman Case 4.17, pp. 138–140 (also part of Lesson 4 reading)

Chapter 12

Section 12:8, National Origin Discrimination and “English Only” Rules, pp. 486-487

Chapter 18

Sections 18:4–18:6, pp. 735–740.

E-Reserve Readings:

Aleinikoff, Martin, Motomura, Fullerton, & Stumpf. (2016) Immigration and Citizenship, Press and Policy. Thomson West.

Chapter 10: Section A(4)(c), Employer Sanctions and Antidiscrimination Provisions, pp. 1106–1122

Chapter 10: Section A(5), Employer Sanctions and Workplace Laws, pp. 1131–1133

Klass, R. (2020). More About No-Match Letters.

Please respond to this scenario.

Located in Phoenix, Arizona, Boom, Inc. (Boom) designs digital platforms for a variety of business applications. Although still a fairly new company, it has landed several lucrative federal and state contracts and has a growing body of private sector work. Boom has just hired you as its new one-person HR department and so far you’ve determined the following:

During his interview, job applicant Ahmed was asked for his proof of citizenship because his Middle Eastern appearance and accent concerned the Boom engineer who interviewed him. At this point, Ahmed’s application is still pending.

The person who hired Tiffany last year forgot to ask for documents providing evidence of her authorization to work in the United States. Although Boom later noticed the glitch, it decided that since Tiffany is a U.S. citizen, there was no need to have her complete a Form I-9.

Todd, who voluntarily displayed his U.S. Military card during his interview, was not asked for any other documents after he was hired last month because the interviewer knew that Todd had served in the Marines and that his U.S. Military card was genuine.

When Juan and Guadalupe applied for work a few months ago, the person who interviewed them could tell at a glance that their work authorization documents were phony but hired them anyway because they were willing to do some low-level work for less than minimum wage.

During the past year, all other applicants were required to bring to their interviews at least two of the following three documents: a U.S. passport, a state driver’s license, or a U.S. military card.

When Boom received a “no match” letter from the Social Security Administration about Molly, it fired her immediately because that seemed to be the easiest way to avoid an IRCA violation.

Two weeks ago, Boom summarily discharged Juan because he was suspected of trying to promote a union. Boom has not issued Juan a check for his last week worked. Juan has now filed an unfair labor practice charge seeking reinstatement and back pay.

Boom has never signed up for E-Verify.

Analyze the fact pattern using the IRAC (Issues, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) formula.

Identify the narrow legal issues in each situation described in paragraphs (a)–(h).

Identify the rule or test used to analyze each of those issues, including the name of the underlying statute. Please also provide the name of and a citation for any case that you reference.

Analyze each of those issues in light of that rule or test.

Based on the law and the facts, describe and explain the basis for the conclusion that you anticipate a court or federal agency would reach as to each issue, and describe how the potential penalties could be assessed against Boom for each issue and, if applicable, cumulatively.