Fired Woman Loses Discrimination Case Under Amnesty Act

An administrative law judge, issuing the first such decision arising from the anti-discrimination provisions of the landmark 1986 immigration law, has found that a Mexican citizen fired by her City of Industry employer a month before amnesty began was not a victim of discrimination.

The decision by Judge Marvin H. Morse, who issued his ruling Aug. 19 in Falls Church, Va., has raised fears among civil rights advocates that it may set a national precedent for a narrow interpretation of the new statutes and could be used to limit protection for foreigners in the process of filing for permanent residence, asylum or refugee status.

“It comes from a very conservative, very narrow reading of the law--not the kind of reading you hope to get in a civil rights case,” said Anne Kamsvaag, who worked on the case for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is considering an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The 1986 act mandated penalties against employers who hire illegal aliens, prompting criticism that employers might discriminate against U.S. citizens and legal residents who may appear “foreign-looking.” In response, lawmakers crafted the anti-discrimination provisions, which generally prohibit workplace discrimination based on national origin or citizenship status. Employers in violation face fines of up to $2,000.

Question of Protection

The case before Morse hinged on the thorny issue of who is protected by the law, which covers U.S citizens and so-called “intending citizens”--a broad group that includes permanent legal residents, refugees, those applying for asylum and amnesty applicants who have been granted temporary residence. Non-citizens must also have completed a declaration stating their intentions to become U.S. citizens.

Noemi Barragan Mandujano Romo, who filed the complaint seeking back pay and reinstatement, was an illegal alien when she was fired from her job on April 3, 1987--about a month before the opening of the application period for the amnesty program. She had been employed by Todd Corp., an industrial launderer and uniform manufacturer that has 40 plants nationwide.

Romo, who is now 26 and resides in La Puente, claimed that she was wrongly dismissed from her $4.75-an-hour job because of her Mexican citizenship. Romo was fired because company officials sought to avoid any problems with U.S. immigration authorities, according to Morse’s decision. Romo, a U.S. resident since 1976, applied for amnesty after she was fired and was granted a temporary residence card.

However, because Romo was fired before she filed for amnesty, Morse ruled that she was not protected by the anti-discrimination statute at that time. The judge also rejected Romo’s argument that she could not possibly have applied for amnesty because the application period had yet to begin.

Attorneys for Romo say she is just the kind of person that the statute sought to shield. “The law was designed to protect people like Ms. Romo from employers who fire anyone they perceive as a risk, either out of ignorance or a desire to avoid any kind of problems with the immigration service,” said Kamsvaag, the co-counsel in the case.

So far, the Justice Department’s office of special counsel for immigration-related unfair employment practices has filed 10 complaints nationwide and is actively investigating 84 others, the spokesman said.