Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co.
59 Cal. 4th 407
| Cal. | 2014Background
- Salas worked seasonally for Sierra Chemical (2003–2006), filed a workers’ compensation claim after a 2006 back injury, and was not rehired for 2007 season.
- Salas had provided a Social Security number and card when hired; SSA later notified him the name/number did not match.
- During litigation, Sierra obtained declarations suggesting Salas used another person’s Social Security number and moved for summary judgment relying on after-acquired evidence and unclean hands.
- Trial court initially denied summary judgment; after writ proceedings the court vacated that order and granted summary judgment; Court of Appeal affirmed.
- California had enacted Senate Bill No. 1818 (2002), declaring state employment protections and remedies available “regardless of immigration status.”
- The California Supreme Court granted review to decide federal preemption of SB 1818 and whether after-acquired evidence / unclean hands can completely bar FEHA claims or only affect remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal immigration law (IRCA) preempts California’s SB 1818 | SB 1818’s grant of state remedies to all workers is valid; federal law does not preempt state antidiscrimination claims | IRCA and Hoffman show federal immigration policy forbids state awards (like backpay) that undermine immigration enforcement | SB 1818 is generally not preempted, but federal law preempts lost-wage awards for any period after employer discovery of employee’s ineligibility to work (post-discovery period) |
| Whether after‑acquired evidence is a complete defense to FEHA claims | After-acquired evidence should not defeat FEHA claims because FEHA embodies strong public policy protecting workers | Employer says discovery of fraud/inauthentic documents that would have justified termination bars the claim | After‑acquired evidence is not a complete defense; it limits remedies. Backpay may be awarded for prediscovery period but not generally for post‑discovery period when employer learned of ineligibility |
| Whether unclean hands is a complete defense to FEHA claims | Unclean hands cannot be used to defeat statutory public‑policy remedies under FEHA | Employer contends plaintiff’s fraud (false SSN) makes relief inequitable and should bar recovery | Unclean hands is not a blanket bar to statutory FEHA claims; equitable considerations may inform remedy but cannot fully defeat the statutory cause of action |
| Proper remedy scope when employee committed wrongdoing to obtain job | Plaintiff seeks full remedies (lost wages, emotional distress, punitive) despite alleged fraud | Employer seeks dismissal or full denial of monetary remedies based on fraud and IRCA policy | Remedies must be fashioned by equity: generally lost wages only up to discovery date; post‑discovery backpay is preempted by federal law when employee was ineligible due to immigration status; other non‑wage remedies may remain available |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002) (awarding backpay to undocumented worker obtained by fraud conflicts with IRCA; federal policy precludes such awards)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) (after‑acquired evidence does not bar liability but limits remedies; backpay runs only to date employer learned of misconduct)
- De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976) (states have authority to regulate employment matters; not every state enactment touching aliens is preempted)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (preemption framework: express, field, and conflict/obstacle preemption; presumption against preemption in areas of traditional state power)
- Sure‑Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984) (limits on reinstatement/backpay to undocumented aliens in light of immigration concerns)