October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1595
Can an employer deny back pay to an undocumented worker?
The dispute centers on whether immigration laws bar an employer from paying back wages to a worker who lacked legal status.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ryan McCortney argued that paying back wages to an undocumented worker conflicts with immigration laws.
He stated that the worker was never legally present or authorized to work in the country.
He cited violations of federal statutes regarding illegal entry and fraudulent employment documents.
The NLRB argued that undocumented workers are entitled to workers' compensation and tort damages in state courts.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-60 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 27-29
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-60 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-60
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 15, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 27-29
What each side wants
Hoffman Plastic Compounds wants the back pay award canceled because the worker lacked legal status.
The NLRB wants the back pay award to stand to protect the worker's labor rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-60 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-60
What each side says
Hoffman argues that paying back wages conflicts with federal immigration laws and public policy.
The NLRB argues that immigration status does not void the right to recover lost wages.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-60 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-60
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the INS opposed paying illegal aliens money they unlawfully earned.
Justice Scalia questioned whether state courts award tort damages to undocumented workers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 27-29
Why it matters
This case defines the financial liability of employers who hire undocumented workers. It clarifies whether federal immigration law overrides labor protections for unauthorized employees. The outcome shapes workplace enforcement and compensation standards nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-60 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-60
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 27-29
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-60 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-60 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-60
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.