Subscribe Now!
Free Daily News, Jobs, Webcasts, Discussions
Post and Distribute
Your Jobs
ARPA Webcasts

Featured Jobs

401(k) Implementation Manager

Human Interest
(Telecommute / San Francisco CA)

Human Interest logo

Defined Contribution Analyst

The Benefit Practice
(Stamford CT / Maitland FL)

The Benefit Practice logo

DB/DC Administrator

Primark Benefits
(Telecommute / Burlingame CA)

Primark Benefits logo

Director of 401(k) Implementation, Core

Human Interest
(Telecommute / Mill Valley CA)

Human Interest logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

Premier Plan Consultants
(Telecommute / San Diego CA)

Premier Plan Consultants logo

Manager, 5500 Team

401K Generation
(Altamonte Springs FL)

401K Generation logo

Product Support Consultant part of Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory
(Telecommute) part of Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory logo

401(k) Consultant

TPS Group
(Telecommute / North Haven CT)

TPS Group logo

Defined Benefit Retirement Plan Administrator

Benefit Associates, Inc.
(Telecommute / Huntington Beach CA)

Benefit Associates, Inc. logo

DC Administrator

(Telecommute / Phoenix AZ)

MGKS logo

Employee Benefits/Health and Welfare Attorney

Miller Johnson
(Telecommute / Grand Rapids MI / Kalamazoo MI / Detroit MI)

Miller Johnson logo

Director of Finance

NYCDC of Carpenters Benefit Funds
(New York NY)

Pension Plan Administrator

DeMars Pension Consulting Services, Inc.
(Overland Park KS)

DeMars Pension Consulting Services, Inc. logo

Retirement Plan Consultant / Relationship Manager

Associated Pension Consultants
(Chico CA / Sacramento CA)

Associated Pension Consultants logo

Free Newsletters

“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”

-- An attorney subscriber

Mobile App image LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
Facebook icon

BenefitsLink > Q&A Columns >

Who's the Employer?

Answers are provided by S. Derrin Watson, JD, APM

Illegal Aliens and the Supreme Court

(Posted June 24, 2002)

Question 205: In Q&A 100, you concluded that illegal aliens should be considered employees and participants of a qualified 401(a) plan even though they are not employed legally. Does the Supreme Court opinion in Hoffman Plastic (122 S. Ct. 1275, 3/27/02) change your opinion?

Answer: Hear Ye! Hear Ye! The Supreme Court of this column is now in session! Mr. Watson will read the opinion of the Court.

The Hoffman case does not change my understanding of the situation. Hoffman dealt with several workers laid off in retaliation for their union organizing activities. The layoffs were a violation of labor law. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled for the workers and concluded that they were entitled to back pay. The NLRB ruled that even though one of the workers was not in the country legally, and was not entitled to work in this country legally, he was entitled to receive back pay.

The Supreme Court held that the NLRB, in fashioning remedies, has to look at other U.S. laws besides labor law. Because the alien's work would have involved criminal acts (either falsifying documents or illegally hiring someone not allowed to work in the country), back pay for that work was inappropriate.

I see a real difference between back pay and retirement plan contributions. Back pay is awarded not because there was a contract with the worker to give him the pay, and not because the worker actually worked and earned the money, but rather because the employer has broken the rules and needs to be punished. The opinion discusses the effect of back pay as a sanction to deter illegal conduct by employers.

Retirement contributions, on the other hand, are part of the employment contract between the company and its workers. They are part of the pay a worker receives for performing services.

It is a long way from saying that an illegal alien is not entitled to payment for work he never did to saying that he is also not entitled to full payment for the services he actually rendered. Would an employer be justifying in not giving a (final) paycheck to a worker he learns supplied false documentation and is actually in the country illegally? I don't think so, and I don't think that is what the Supreme Court is suggesting. Then why would it be appropriate for that employer to withhold the deferred compensation that the employee had earned?

The Court will now adjourn. Be upstanding!

Important notice:

Answers are provided as general guidance on the subjects covered in the question and are not provided as legal advice to the questioner or to readers. Any legal issues should be reviewed by your legal counsel to apply the law to the particular facts of this and similar situations.

The law in this area changes frequently. Answers are believed to be correct as of the posting dates shown. The completeness or accuracy of a particular answer may be affected by changes in the law (statutes, regulations, rulings, court decisions, etc.) that occur after the date on which a particular Q&A is posted.

Copyright 1999-2017 S. Derrin Watson
Related links:

(restricted access)

(restricted access)

© 2021, Inc.