895 F. Supp. 2d 1159
N.D. Ala.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Audrey Broussard-Wadkins and Darlene Harbin were Maples Industries hourly employees who sued owners/officers Wade Maples, John Maples, Howard Moore, and Gina Mateo under RICO for allegedly depressing wages by knowingly hiring illegal immigrants and by false attestation on employment documents.
- Defendants allegedly conspired to violate INA §274(a) and §1546(b) to hire unauthorized workers and to use false attestations to satisfy verification requirements.
- Plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf of similarly situated Maples hourly employees authorized to work in the U.S.
- Court addressed three motions: defendants’ summary judgment; defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ expert reports Mallon (immigration) and Borjas (economics); plaintiffs’ class-certification motion.
- Mallon reviewed 840 of roughly 3,700 employee files; he concluded 139 (approximately 16.5%) were unauthorized and that HR personnel knowingly hired aliens and falsely certified Form I-9s; Borjas relied on Mallon’s data to model wage impact and damages.
- Borjas’ report was challenged as dependent on Mallon’s findings and as methodologically unreliable in parts, leading to a partial strike of his testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether INA hiring provision supports RICO predicate | Mallon evidence shows owners knowingly hired illegal aliens | Actual knowledge of illegal entry not proven | Issue for summary judgment; unresolved proximately |
| Whether attestation provision supports RICO predicate | Mateo falsified attestations via pre-signing Forms I-9 | Attestations only complete when dated; compliance disputed | Partial admissibility; potential RICO predicate remains |
| Whether Mallon’s expert report is admissible | Mallon’s immigration expertise is valid and useful | Speculative, sampling and methodology flaws | Mallon partially admissible; specific opinions excluded |
| Whether Borjas’ economic analysis is admissible | Borjas provides damages model tying wage depression to immigrant labor | Reliance on Mallon and firm-level inference unreliable | Borjas’ report stricken; damages theory rejected |
| Whether summary judgment proper on RICO claims | Evidence creates triable issues on causation and injury | No admissible evidence linking false attestations to wage damage | Summary judgment granted for defendants; claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir.2010) (pattern of racketeering requires related predicate acts; INA context emphasized)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (S. Ct.1999) (gatekeeping to admissibility; flexible Daubert factors)
- Maiz v. Virani, 253 F.3d 641 (11th Cir.2001) (three-part reliability test under Rule 702)
- Hendrix ex rel. G.P. v. Evenflo Co., Inc., 609 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir.2010) ( Daubert factors; reliability and relevance in expert testimony)
- Collins Foods International, Inc. v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 948 F.2d 549 (9th Cir.1991) (verification provision; facial appearance standard governing document validity)
- Hall v. Thomas, 753 F.Supp.2d 1113 (N.D. Ala.2010) (Borjas’ firm-level analysis criticized; completeness and reliability concerns raised)
- Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., 465 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir.2006) (proximity causation guidance in RICO context)