In Mezonos, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for the first time had the opportunity to factually distinguish from Hoffman Plastics a case where the employer, rather than the employee, violated the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The legislative history and prior case law shows that immigration control is clearly compatible with traditional labor rights, thus the Hoffman majority has no statutory basis for reading the purposes of IRCA as entirely displacing the traditional enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act. As correctly set forth in Hoffman, a plaintiff who has the intent to violate IRCA by providing fraudulent documents should not be rewarded with backpay under the NLRA, but an employer should similarly be held accountable for backpay remedies where the employer, and not the employee, is at fault for violating IRCA and the NLRA.
This paper investigates the motives of employers and undocumented workers, the intent of the Congressional drafters of these two compatible statutes, and analogizes to fault principles in tort and contract law to determine the proper reading of Hoffman.
Dueltgen, Jon Luke, "Mezonos, Hoffman and the Notion of Intent" (2012). Louis Jackson National Student Writing Competition. 9.