New Legislation to Make Employing Illegal Immigrants a Crime
Lawyers from the US Department of Justice and a group of Georgia workers have filed a suit with the US Supreme Court to allow Mohawk Industries, a floor covering manufacturer to be sued under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO) for allegedly hiring illegal workers. The lawsuit was filed alleging that Mohawk has known of their employment and harboring of illegal workers. They have helped to reduce Mohawk’s labor costs with low hourly wages and by discouraging worker’s-compensation claims.
This act, a U.S. federal law, provides for extended penalties for criminal acts as part of a continuous criminal organization. Under this act, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes (27 federal and 8 state) – within a 10 year period, can be charged with racketeering. Those charged with this crime can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison. Those convicted must also forfeit all gains and interests in any business-related activity because of this crime.
Congress debated the passage of the RICO Act, or a similar statute, for years – if not decades, but specifically in 1970, enforcement begun. Racketeering activity defines an act or threat involving gambling, murder, kidnaping, arson, robbery, bribery and extortion.
The case’s largest argument lies with the idea of which corporations qualify as “enterprises” within the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). This act states that there is strong criminal and civil liability on persons involved with a racketeering activity directly connected with an enterprise. Enterprise is defined to include any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or any other legal entity.
The largest question as mentioned in Eric Tuttle’s “Today’s Argument in Mohawk Industries, Inc. V. Williams,” is whether a corporation acting in concert with outside recruiters and staffing agencies to hire illegal aliens can constitute an “enterprise-in-fact,” such that the corporation can be sued as a distinct member of the enterprise. The courts believe that Mohawk is subject to lawsuit under RICO. However, the employees who state that the company’s practices have lessen their wages believe that Mohawk is attempting to rid all corporations from these claims.
Mohawk’s two arguments in why it cannot be defined as an enterprise argue the plain text of the statute. First of all, they argue that the general definition of enterprises is as stated in the statue, but also includes “a group of individuals.” This refers to natural persons, and not corporations. The limitation involved with this term is quite significant however. Mohawk believes that when Congress enacted RICO it was concerned with organize crime i.e. mobster crime and not where the corporation is the defendant as the racketeer using an enterprise.
Most aren’t buying this, however. First of all, critics claim there are three arguments involved. First, the company doesn’t have a good argument on their own. Next, the definition of enterprise included any individual or partnership which draws a conclusion on the initial meaning of the use of the term, at once point, they use “includes,” while in another “means.” Lastly, every court for decades have found the association-in-fact to include corporations. They generally will be hesitant to turn down precedent, but don’t always feel obligated to follow those decisions.
Many lower courts have understood RICO in a more broad sense than an anti-mob legislation piece. They also have believed that it is unbelievable to exclude more complicated forms of enterprise. Due to these courts’ interpretation, Congress has taken this understanding and amended RICO in 1996.
Wording within the statute continues to be an issue. Mohawk argues that the RICO “person” must be distinct from an entire “enterprise” and must participate in the activities of one. This is in fact argued because of lower courts decisions that neither a corporation and its employees nor a corporation may form a distinct enterprise. There have been many examples in which corporate defendants as members of a larger enterprise.
However, many feel that the lower courts’ opinions are wrong because of Cedric Kushner Promotions v. King, a case where a sole shareholder/officer/employee is distinct to be the “person” as noted in the statue and is directly involved in the said “enterprise.” Many believe that Mohawk’s standard is unworkable – saying any activity is essential to a company’s business operations – and that shouldn’t be the case.
In conclusion, interpretation of law has become an increasingly difficult task due to the various viewpoints involved. Within a company’s organization, not all employees are directly involved with the decision-making made in carrying out specifics business operations. Thus, not every employee should be held accountable for all of its activities. Most importantly, the rhetoric used to define these people should be more definite and clear, so to avoid this argument to occur again in future cases.
