Noe Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Company, Inc.
2017 Ind. LEXIS 341
| Ind. | 2017Background
- Escamilla, an unauthorized immigrant employed as a masonry laborer, suffered a workplace back injury and permanent lifting restrictions that ended his masonry career.
- He retained a vocational expert (Sara Ford) and an economist (Ronald Missun), who calculated lifetime decreased earning capacity of $578,194 to $947,421 based on U.S. wages and tax returns.
- Defendant Shiel Sexton moved to (a) bar recovery of decreased earning capacity based on Escamilla’s immigration status, (b) admit immigration status as relevant to damages (deportation risk), and (c) exclude the experts for not accounting for immigration status; Escamilla moved in limine to exclude mention of his immigration status.
- Trial court admitted evidence of Escamilla’s unauthorized status, excluded the experts’ testimony, and closed discovery; Escamilla appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part; this Court granted transfer.
- The Indiana Supreme Court held (1) unauthorized immigrants may seek decreased earning capacity damages under the Indiana Open Courts Clause, (2) immigration status is relevant but generally inadmissible under Evid. R. 403 unless the proponent proves by a preponderance the plaintiff will likely be deported, and (3) expert failure to account for contingencies is a weight/cross-examination issue, not grounds for exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Escamilla) | Defendant's Argument (Shiel Sexton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May an unauthorized immigrant recover decreased earning capacity damages? | Open Courts Clause guarantees access; state common-law damages available to "every person." | Hoffman and federal immigration policy bar recovery of U.S. wage-based future earnings. | Held: Yes; Indiana Open Courts Clause allows such claims; Hoffman (federal statutory context) does not preclude state common-law damages. |
| Is a plaintiff’s unauthorized immigration status admissible at trial to reduce lost future earnings? | Immigration status is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial; should be excluded. | Status is relevant because deportation risk may reduce future U.S. earnings; admissible. | Held: Status is relevant (Rule 401) but usually inadmissible under Rule 403 due to risk of confusing issues and unfair prejudice unless proponent proves by preponderance that plaintiff will likely be deported. |
| When should trial courts permit immigration-status evidence? | (Implicit) Only with strong, specific proof of deportation risk. | Admission whenever any risk of deportation exists and evidence affects damages. | Held: Preponderance standard that plaintiff will be deported; burdens proof on proponent of immigration evidence. |
| Were the experts properly excluded for not accounting for immigration status? | Experts’ methodology is admissible; deficiencies go to weight, not admissibility. | Experts unreliable because they ignored a fundamental contingency (immigration status). | Held: Exclusion was abuse of discretion; experts may testify; opposing party may attack methodology via cross-examination and contrary evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1982) (aliens are "persons" protected under constitutional due process principles)
- Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 535 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2002) (addressing backpay to undocumented workers under federal labor statute; narrow federal statutory context)
- Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, 230 P.3d 583 (Wash. 2010) (holding undocumented status probative value for lost future earnings is substantially outweighed by prejudice)
- Clemente v. California, 707 P.2d 818 (Cal. 1985) (finding immigration status irrelevant and prejudicial in damages context)
- Rosa v. Partners in Progress, Inc., 868 A.2d 994 (N.H. 2005) (holding undocumented status relevant and necessary to lost earnings calculation)
- Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC, 845 N.E.2d 1246 (N.Y. 2006) (addressing admissibility of immigration status in lost-earnings claims)