Category: Labor & Employment

Mandatory Paid Sick Leave: Employers Bracing for November Ballot Initiative in Orange County

The National Law Review recently published an article regarding Mandatory Paid Sick Leave, by Rachel D. Gebaide and Melody B. Lynch of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A.:

Citizens for Greater Orange County (CGOC), a Florida political committee, last week presented the requisite number of signatures needed to garner a spot on the November 6, 2012 ballot in Orange County for a proposed earned paid sick leave ordinance. Bill Cowles, Orange County Supervisor of Elections, verified the final petitions needed for the measure on Friday, August 17, 2012, after determining that the CGOC collected over 50,000 signatures from Orange County registered voters.

If approved by voters, the paid sick leave ordinance would require all employers in Orange County with 15 or more employees to provide each employee with one hour of paid job-protected sick leave for every 37 hours worked, up to a maximum of 56 hours of paid sick leave annually. Smaller employers in Orange County are not required to provide paid sick leave but may not retaliate against any employee who uses up to 56 hours of sick time per year. As a result, the ordinance essentially requires Orange County employers with fewer than 15 employees to provide up to 56 hours of unpaid sick leave annually to each employee.

Under the proposed ordinance, which applies to full and part-time employees, employees could use their paid sick leave for their own illness, diagnosis or preventative medical care, for the care of an ill family member, or to care for their child in the event that a child’s school or day care facility is closed due to a public health emergency. The definition of a family member under the ordinance is quite broad, and includes an employee’s spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, domestic partner, sibling or other individual related by blood or affinity.

In formal opposition to the sick leave ordinance and in an attempt to block the ballot initiative, a coalition of local chamber of commerce organizations and business associations filed a Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief in Orange County Circuit Court against the Citizens for Greater Orange County and Bill Cowles, in his official capacity as the Orange County Supervisor of Elections. The crux of the chambers’ and business associations’ argument is that the language of the ballot initiative is misleading to voters and is cost-prohibitive to employers, including the non-profit organizations, charities and religious institutions that also would be covered by the ordinance. According to the Orlando Sentinel, Orange County Mayor Teresa Jacobs and each of the Orange County Commissioners oppose the sick leave ordinance, suggesting that Board of County Commissioners is unlikely to adopt the ordinance which it could do instead of sending the issue to the voters.

Barring a successful legal challenge, Orange County voters will cast their vote for or against the sick leave ordinance in November. In addition to the legal challenge, Orange County voters can expect to see well-organized campaigns on both sides of the issue.

If the sick leave ordinance passes, employers in Orange County will need to analyze their current sick leave and other paid time off policies and implement new or revised policies no later than January 1, 2013, to comply with the ordinance.Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor, & Reed, P.A. has a team of employment lawyers who can assist you with that analysis, including the interplay between the sick leave ordinance, related federal and state laws, and your paid time off policies.

© Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, PA

How to be Prepared: When an Employee’s Misconduct Leads to Termination

The National Law Review recently published an article regarding Employee Misconduct written by Preston Clark Worley of McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC:

Terminating an employee can be one of the most difficult tasks for a business owner or human resource manager. It is however the responsibility of both positions and a necessary part of doing business. Termination is difficult under most circumstances because of the personal information an employer may know about an employee. After an employee becomes part of the workforce supervisors often discover personal information, such as an employee’s financial hardships or family difficulties, which makes difficult decisions uncomfortable.

Besides the emotional stress of terminating an employee, there are also legal concerns. Every employer should have steps in place that protect the company against wrongful termination or discrimination lawsuits.

The most important factor when terminating an employee is documentation. You cannot document enough. Employee documentation should describe in detail, all actions and behaviors that lead to all disciplinary actions and ultimately the termination of the employee. Every incident report and reprimand should be documented, clearly outlining the actions taken. (To read more about documentation of misconduct visit http://mcbrayeremploymentlaw.com/2012/08/03/how-to-be-prepared-when-an-employees-misconduct-leads-to-termination/)

Of course, we more easily think to document the incidents and reprimands of an employee, but it is also important for a company to document all trainings, meetings and attempts to assist or improve the employee’s behaviors.  It is best to review with the employee all performance expectations and conduct policies, before the employee starts to work and again after any incident of misconduct.  Each time and employee is reminded of the expectations and conduct policies; the communications should be documented by the employer and signed by the employee.

If this practice is followed, prior to termination, an employee will have received several reprimands and incident reports that relate to poor performance or policy violations.  Even though you have documented this all in the employee’s file, and they have read and signed each document, one more step should solidify the documentation necessary to ensure a proper termination of a difficult employee.  Draft a final warning letter, outlining each time the employee has had a problem, and the steps the company has taken to resolve the issue.  This letter is similar to a termination letter, in that it spells out exactly what repercussions the employee will suffer (i.e.; termination) if the behavior is not corrected.

If the company has a well-documented employee file, the likelihood of encountering trouble from terminating an employee are greatly minimized.

© 2012 by McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC

Vacation Pay at Termination: What’s your Policy?

Recently W. Chapman Hopkins of McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC had an article, Vacation Pay at Termination: What’s your Policy?, featured in The National Law Review:

For many employers, the summer season brings with it an increase in employee vacations. With that in mind, now may be a good time to re-visit vacation pay policies as they pertain to employee separation. In particular, how does your company handle accrued, but unused, vacation pay at the time of separation?

Kentucky’s wage statutes expressly require employers to pay, in full, all “wages or salary earned” at the time of separation.  KRS 337.055.  The term “wages” includes “any compensation due to an employee by reason of his or her employment, including…vested vacation pay.”  KRS 337.010.  In order to know how much vacation pay must be paid at separation, it is therefore necessary to determine how much of an employee’s vacation pay has “vested.”

Based on the interplay of those two statutes, failing to include language in your employment policy addressing vesting could force you to have to litigate the issue should the employee sue to recover unpaid vacation benefits.  The best approach, therefore, is to specifically define when and how vacation pay vests.  An employment policy should articulate that annual paid vacation is earned as labor is performed throughout the year, and therefore “vests” as it is earned.  This ensures that an employee who has only worked for part of the year at separation will receive only the proportionate share of his or her vacation pay.  Considering that Kentucky courts have consistently held vacation pay to be a matter of contract between employers and employees, it may be a good idea to have employees sign an acknowledgment of the vacation pay policy.

As always, consulting your attorney and HR professional before making any changes is advisable.

© 2012 by McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC

Theft of Employee Data from Third-Party Vendor Exposes Employer and Vendor to Privacy Class Action

The National Law Review recently published an article by Kevin M. McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. regarding Employee Data Theft:

A recently-filed class action lawsuit asserts claims against the Winn-Dixie supermarket chain and a third-party vendor, Purchasing Power, LLC, in connection with the alleged theft of employee data provided to Purchasing Power in order to administer a discount purchasing program offered to Winn-Dixie employees.  The claims advanced against Winn-Dixie and Purchasing Power highlight the potential risks associated with sharing employee or customer data with third party vendors, and underscore the need for companies to ensure that the data security practices of third-party vendors are consistent with those of the companies themselves.  The complaint also demonstrates how failure to make prompt disclosure of data breaches to affected individuals can increase the risk of class action litigation.

According to the complaint in Burrows v. Purchasing Power, LLC, Case No. 1:12-cv-22800 (S.D. Fla.), Winn-Dixie either transferred or permitted Purchasing Power to access personally identifiable information (“PII”) of Winn-Dixie employees for the purpose of making a discount purchasing program available to Winn-Dixie’s employees.  The complaint alleges that Winn-Dixie notified employees on January 27, 2012 that Winn-Dixie employee data had been inappropriately accessed by an employee of Purchasing Power.  The notice further stated that Winn-Dixie first learned of the data theft in October 2011.  According to the complaint, Winn-Dixie did not explain the reason for its delay in providing notice, and Purchasing Power has never, at any time, provided notice of the breach to Winn-Dixie employees.

One unique aspect of Burrows that distinguishes it from the typical privacy class action is an allegation that the named plaintiff suffered actual injury by reason of a data breach.  Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the Internal Revenue Service refused to accept his 2011 federal income tax return, stating that a return had already been filed in his name.  Plaintiff claims that someone who had access to the PII stolen from Purchasing Power filed the return, thereby depriving plaintiff of an anticipated refund.  He seeks damages associated with the lost refund, in addition to other damages associated with the risk of further misuse of his PII.

The complaint asserts claims for negligence, violation of the federal Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2702, violation of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and breach of the common law right to privacy.  Plaintiff asserts these claims on behalf of a putative class of all Florida employees of Winn-Dixie whose PII was provided to or accessed by Purchasing Power.

The complaint in Burrows has some evident flaws.  The Stored Communications Act only applies to conduct by entities such as Internet service providers that are engaged in the “provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system.”  18 U.S.C. § 2711(2).  Neither the defendants nor the conduct alleged facially meet this requirement.  Further, the particularized harm allegedly suffered by the named plaintiff allows defendants to argue that determining whether class members suffered actual injury would raise highly individualized questions of fact that preclude certification of a plaintiff class to seek money damages under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

Nonetheless, certain aspects of Burrows pose challenges for the defendants.  Where, as here, the data breach allegedly resulted from a targeted effort to steal PII – unlike cases involving thefts of laptops, in which any data theft is incidental – courts have been more receptive to claims that class members’ costs to mitigate risk of identity theft constitute cognizable injury.  The actual injury allegedly suffered by the named plaintiff supports the argument that the threat of misuse of the stolen data is not speculative and, therefore, warrants monetary and injunctive relief.

Burrows provides a timely reminder that it is critical that any company that shares customer or employee PII with a vendor must ensure that the vendor can adequately protect such data.  Executing a written agreement specifying the company’s and the vendor’s respective data security obligations is a necessary, but not sufficient step.  The contract will not be worth the paper on which it is written if the vendor lacks the capability to comply with its obligations.  Individuals responsible for the company’s data security practices must engage in sufficient due diligence to assure the company that the vendor’s data security practices are at least commensurate with the company’s practices and otherwise comply with the legal requirements of all applicable states and jurisdictions.  In addition, to provide proper incentives to adhere to contract requirements, the agreement should indemnify the company for any losses caused by the vendor’s failure to satisfy its data security obligations.

Finally, Burrows illustrates the critical importance of prompt notification whenever a data breach occurs.  If plaintiff was indeed victimized by someone who filed a bogus return using the plaintiff’s stolen PII, notice to employees in October 2011, perhaps combined with proactive steps to protect affected employees from misuse of data, might have forestalled such an injury.  Absent such an occurrence, it is unlikely that a lawsuit would ever have been filed.  Ultimately, providing prompt notice whenever a data breach occurs avoids violating state law notice requirements and discourages the filing of class action lawsuits.

©1994-2012 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

NLRB Political “Tit for Tat” Continues

The National Law Review recently published an article, NLRB Political “Tit for Tat” Continues, by Keith J. Brodie of Barnes & Thornburg LLP:

 

 

Another Obama recess appointment to the NLRB is drawing Congressional scrutiny in recent days, in a continuation of the behind-the-scenes politicking between the Administration and certain Congressional members.  As we have reported previously, Republican Board Member Terrance Flynn resigned in May in the wake of allegations of inappropriate communications during his time as Chief Counsel for Board Member Brian Hayes.   Now Senator Orin Hatch, a prominent Utah Republican, has set his sights on Democratic Board Member Richard Griffin.  Prior to being appointed to the Board by President Obama in January, Mr. Griffin was General Counsel of the International Union of Operating Engineers.

In a letter sent to Mr. Griffin on July 18, Senator Hatch raises questions about Mr. Griffin’s actions during his time as General Counsel for the union, specifically requesting information about his role in defending IUOE union officials accused of fraud and extortion, an area that he claims would have been investigated in detail at Mr. Griffin’s confirmation hearing in front of the Senate, if not for President Obama’s actions in appointing Mr. Griffin as a recess appointment.  It remains to be seen whether Member Griffin will actually respond to Senator Hatch’s questions.  But Senator Hatch’s letter illustrates that the Board is likely to continue to be closely scrutinized by Congress, especially as the election season progresses, and that the political “tit for tat” is likely to continue.

Senator Hatch’s letter to Mr. Griffin is available here (PDF).

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

NLRB Chills At-Will Acknowledgements of Social Media in Employee Handbooks

The National Law Review recently published an article about the NLRB’s Social Media Rulings written by Jerrold J. Wohlgemuth of  Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP:

 

 

Having warned employers about the legality of their social media policies under theNational Labor Relations Act, NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon has apparently turned his attention to at-will employment statements in employer handbooks and manuals.  Employers of union and non-union workforces need to pay careful attention to this development.

Many employers use standard language in their handbooks and manuals in which their employees acknowledge that their employment is at-will; that the employer may terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason; and that the at-will employment relationship cannot be amended, altered or modified except by a writing signed by a senior member of management.  The Acting General Counsel apparently believes that such at-will disclaimers may interfere with or chill the right of employees to engage in protected concerted activity.

In a case that did not receive extensive publicity, the General Counsel’s Office filed an unfair labor practice charge in February 2012 against Hyatt Hotels (NLRB v. Hyatt Hotels Corp., Case 28 CA-061114) in which it alleged that the at-will disclaimer in the company’s employee handbook violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act to the extent it required employees to acknowledge that their at-will employment status could not be altered except by a writing signed by management.  The charge appears to reflect the Acting General Counsel’s belief that such an acknowledgement will have a chilling effect on the Section 7 right of employees to engage in concerted activity for the purpose of organizing to alter their employment relationship with the employer by choosing union representation.  The Hyatt case was settled before the issue was presented for a hearing.  An Administrative Law Judge issued a similar ruling in a case decided in early February against the American Red Cross; the case was resolved when the Red Cross agreed to modify its at-will disclaimer before the issue could be presented to the Board for review. (NLRB v. Am. Red Cross, 2012 WL 311334, Feb 1, 2012).

This is an important initiative on the part of the Acting General Counsel.  As we have seen in the social media context, in analyzing handbooks and policy manuals the Acting General Counsel will apply Section 7 broadly to find statements unlawful to the extent they could be interpreted in almost any fashion to chill employee rights to engage in protected concerted activity.  Accordingly, employers may want to take proactive steps to avoid NLRB scrutiny by including a disclaimer in the at-will sections of their handbooks to the effect that the at-will acknowledgment does not, and is not intended to, undermine or interfere with the employee’s right to engage in protected concerted organizing activity under Section 7 of the Act.

©2012 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Impact of Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012 on Dairy Farmers

The National Law Review recently published an article regarding Agriculture Reform written by Kristiana M. Coutu of Varnum LLP:

Varnum LLP

This summer, the U.S. Senate voted to proceed to consideration of theAgriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012 (2012 Farm Bill). The proposed bill can be accessed on the Senate Agriculture Committee’s website, however, be warned, it will take time and perseverance to wade through the 1010 pages of text.  While a complete study of the 2012 Farm Bill may be fascinating for some of us, the practical concern is how it will affect specific industries within agriculture and individual farms. Because Michigan dairy farms are a vital component of our state’s economy, it seems appropriate to consider how this proposed legislation will affect dairy farmers.

Two new programs will replace the current Dairy Product Price Support Payment and the Milk Income Loss Contract Program (MILC).  The new programs are the Dairy Production Margin Protection Program (“Margin Protection Program”) and the Dairy Market Stabilization Program (“Stabilization Program”) which have the stated purpose of guaranteeing dairy farmers a certain margin of milk price over feed costs and assisting in balancing the supply of milk with demand when participating dairy farms are experiencing low or negative operating margins by encouraging dairy farmers to produce less milk.  The two programs must be looked at together since any dairy operation that participates in the voluntary Margin Production Program must also participate in the Stabilization Program.

In its most basic terms, the Margin Protection Program insures farmers a minimum $4.00 margin of average national milk price, termed the “all milk price” over the national average feed price based on the price of corn, soybean meal and alfalfa.   A margin of less than $4.00 for two consecutive months triggers a government payment based 80% of historical milk production. Dairy farmers may also purchase supplemental margin protection to insure up to an $8.00 margin on 90% of historical production.  Although these programs are sometimes referred to as insurance, they are not associated with the federal crop insurance program and no insurance agents are involved.

The Stabilization Program encourages farmers to produce less milk by ordering handlers not to pay farmers for a percentage of milk shipped during any month the Stabilization Program is “in effect” based on low national margins.   Handlers must reduce the producer’s milk check when milk shipped exceeds what is called the “dairy operation’s stabilization base.”  The money that would have gone to the producer is instead paid to the Secretary of Agriculture to use for building demand for dairy products and purchasing dairy products for donation.

These new programs provide a good deal of food for thought, including questions about the effectiveness in various geographic regions of the U.S., considering the difference in milk price and input costs; the effect on various farms based on size; and whether forcing handlers to submit milk proceeds to the government is essentially a tax on dairy farmers.  Dairy farmers should evaluate these programs in light of their individual farm’s circumstances to determine the impact should these programs be included in the final Farm Bill.

It is estimated that debate on the Senate floor will be ongoing for at least the next two weeks and that several amendments to the bill will be proposed and debated.  We will continue to monitor the progress of the Farm Bill in general and also specific dairy provisions.

© 2012 Varnum LLP

DOL Publishes New Employees’ Guide to the FMLA

The National Law Review recently published an article by Joel M. Nolan of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., regarding FMLA:

Recently, the U.S. Department of Labor released a user-friendly Employees’ Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act.  The guide is targeted at employees, but may also serve as a helpful tool for employers looking for an efficient summary of the law.

The guide does not provide new information or legal interpretations of the law; rather, it provides a plain-language overview of the FMLA’s major provisions and contours, such as FMLA eligibility, FMLA rights and protections, the process for requesting leave (and associated notice provisions), FMLA certifications, and job reinstatement.  In addition, the guide highlights certain unique circumstances and incorporates some of the DOL’s  interpretive guidance on particular issues.  For example, the guide discusses eligibility guidelines for airline flight attendants and flight crew employees, describes when employees may be eligible to take FMLA leave to care for certain children with whom the employee has no legal relationship (or to care for another as such a child), and emphasizes the importance of employer FMLA policies.  Further, the guide provides clear flowcharts regarding FMLA eligibility and certification and the process for taking FMLA leave, as well as information for employees on filing an FMLA complaint with the DOL’s wage-and-hour division.

The DOL has also archived a webinar about the guide, which is available here:  http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/employeeguide-webinar.htm

©1994-2012 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Employer Group Health Plans and the Constitutionality of the ACA

Focus turns to completing 2012 and 2013 compliance tasks following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that virtually the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) is constitutional (with the exception of a Medicaid issue that is not directly relevant to employers), validating the full range of past, present, and future ACA requirements. Employers now must continue to press ahead with 2012 and 2013 ACA compliance requirements, particularly if these tasks were placed on a back burner awaiting the decision.

The Decision

Writing for a 5-4 majority in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., found that the individual mandate in the ACA is a permissible exercise of Congress’s taxing authority, stating that “[t]he Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax.” Chief Justice Roberts also wrote that “because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, and Elena Kagan. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., dissented.

Next Steps for Employers

Now that the ACA has been upheld, employer group health plans must focus on a number of pressing tasks for 2012 and 2013 compliance with the ACA. In the coming weeks and months, employers should do the following:

  • Determine whether they are appropriately aggregating group health plan valuation data in order to support 2012 Form W-2 reporting.
  • Prepare to receive, and properly distribute or apply, any Medical Loss Ratio rebates associated with 2011 insured health coverage.
  • Finalize Summary of Benefits and Coverage material for inclusion in the 2013 Open Enrollment package.
  • Complete updates to Summary Plan Descriptions and plan documents to capture and describe the 2011 and 2012 ACA changes to their plan design.
  • Reflect the 2013 plan year $2,500 cap on salary deferral contributions into healthcare spending accounts in 2013 Open Enrollment material, payroll processes, and administration systems.
  • Understand and begin to determine the patient-centered outcomes trust fund fees due in July 2013.
  • Begin to identify whether their group health plans are both affordable and available to full-time employees in order to avoid any shared responsibility penalty in 2014.
  • Prepare for audits associated with their participation in the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, if applicable.
  • Review possible design changes to retiree drug programs to reflect the change in Medicare Part D subsidy taxation rules.
  • Review future plan design changes to blunt the balance sheet impact of the 2018 Cadillac Tax.

Implications

While the Supreme Court decision is an important milestone in the federal debate over expanding healthcare coverage, it likely represents just the first in a series of future federal discussions and actions in the coming months and years.

The federal debate now moves to the November election cycle. The ACA no doubt will play a large role in the upcoming elections, but it is premature to expect any quick legislative reversals to ACA provisions, as any changes would require a significant shift in power.

In the interim, employer group health plans should continue to examine and implement those ACA requirements that will be effective in 2012, 2013, and later years into the design and operation of their group health plans.

We will release future LawFlashes and hold webinars as further guidance becomes available.

Copyright © 2012 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Supreme Court Strikes Down Majority of Arizona SB 1070

The National Law Review recently published an article by Jennifer G. Roeper of Fowler White Boggs P.A. regarding Arizona’s SB 1070:

The two-year long fight over the controversial Arizona immigration law, SB 1070, finally came to an end on Monday, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Arizona v. United States. SB 1070, which permitted state officials to enforce federal immigration laws, made its way to the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit blocked portions of the bill last year. Three key provisions of the law were struck down on the grounds that they were preempted by federal immigration law, and one provision was upheld.

The first provision to be struck down was Section 3 of the bill, which made it a misdemeanor under state law for immigrants to fail to seek or carry federal registration papers. The Court held that the provision was preempted, as Congress intended registration of foreign nationals to be a “single integrated and all-embracing” federal system, leaving no room for states to regulate in the area.

The second provision appears in Section 5(C). Section 5(C) made it a crime in Arizona for immigrants to work or solicit work without employment authorization. The Court held that this provision was also preempted, as Congress had only imposed civil penalties on unlawful employment, specifically declining to impose criminal penalties.

The third provision struck down by the Supreme Court is Section 6, which gave local police the authority to make warrantless arrests of immigrants suspected of being removable. This provision would have provided state officers with greater arrest authority than federal immigration officers, and could be exercised with no instruction from the Federal Government. In writing the opinion of the Court, Justice Kennedy stated that Section 6 “violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government. …[It] creates an obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

Finally, section 2(B), one of the most controversial provisions, was upheld, as it was found to be too early to determine how the provision would be applied in practice. 2(B) requires local law enforcement to investigate into the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested when “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully. This is the so-called “racial profiling” provision, as many believe the only way an officer could have “reasonable suspicion” that an immigrant is unlawfully present is through racial profiling. Even though the Court upheld the provision at 2(B), it nonetheless recognized these concerns, and thus left the door open for future challenges based on discrimination. Justice Kennedy stated that the Court’s holding “does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.”

Overall, the decision comes as both a victory and somewhat of a surprise to immigration community, as the Supreme Court Justices did not generally appear to be in favor of the law when oral arguments were heard in May. Nevertheless, the holding confirms what immigration advocates have argued all along— that immigration enforcement belongs to the Federal Government, and states are therefore prohibited from taking matters into their own hands.

©2002-2012 Fowler White Boggs P.A.