SAFEHARBOR EMPLOYER SERVICES I, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JUAN CINTO VELAZQUEZ, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
SafeHarbor Employer Services challenged whether an illegal alien could receive workers' compensation benefits under Florida law following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB. The court held that Hoffman does not preempt Florida's workers' compensation statute, and illegal aliens remain eligible for benefits under Chapter 440.
Illegal aliens may receive workers' compensation benefits under Florida's Chapter 440. Hoffman does not preempt Florida law because IRCA contains no express preemption language, does not occupy the field so thoroughly as to preclude state action, and Hoffman itself recognized that benefits other than back-pay remain available to illegal aliens.
[1] Federal law, specifically the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), does not preempt state authority to award workers' compensation benefits to undocumented aliens.
[2] The Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. …
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“IRCA does not contain express preemption language nor does it so thoroughly occupy the field as to require a reasonable inference that Congress left no room for states to act.”
Establishes the court's preemption analysis and conclusion that IRCA does not preempt state workers' compensation laws
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJuan Cinto Velazquez, an illegal alien, sought workers' compensation benefits for a work-related injury. SafeHarbor Employer Services argued that the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Immigration Reform And Control Act (Irca) cases and more on FLexlaw
HAWKES, J.
We are asked to decide whether an illegal alien may receive benefits under Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2002), in light of Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 122 S.Ct. 1275, 152 L.Ed.2d 271 (2002). We find that he can, and affirm.
Safeharbor Employer Services, Inc. argues that Hoffman preempts Florida law, and thus illegal aliens in Florida are precluded from receiving workers’ compensation benefits. Hoffman held that pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), the National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to award backpay to an illegal alien because he had never been legally authorized to work in the United States, even though he had been unlawfully terminated in violation of the National Labor Relations Act and would have otherwise been entitled to benefits. See id. at 1282.
Although not yet addressed by Florida courts, this issue has been decided by the Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania and Minnesota. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that subsequent to Hoffman, public policy did not exclude an illegal alien from receiving relief under their Workers’ Compensation Act. See Reinforced Earth Co. v. W.C.A.B. (Astudillo), 570 Pa.464, 810 A. 2d 99 (2002). Similarly, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently held IRCA, subsequent to Hoffman, does not preempt a state’s authority to award workers’ compensation benefits to illegal aliens. See Correa v. Waymouth Farms, Inc., 664 N.W. 2d 324 (Minn.2003).
The Florida Workers’ Compensation Act clearly allowed benefits to illegal aliens under Chapter 440 prior to Hoffman. See Cenvill Development Corp. v. Candelo, 478 So. 2d 1168, 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see also Gene’s Harvesting v. Rodriguez, 421 So. 2d 701, 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (holding fact that workers’ compensation claimant was illegal alien did not preclude entitlement to benefits for work-related injury). Hoffman does not mandate a different result.
In the absence of an express congressional statement, a state law may still be preempted if that law actually conflicts with federal law, or if federal law so thoroughly occupies a legislative field as to require a reasonable inference that Congress left no room for it to be supplemented by the state. See Harrell v. Fla. Constr. Specialists/AARLA/Agent for FWCIGAl, 834 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). IRCA does not contain express preemption language nor does it so thoroughly occupy the field as to require a reasonable inference that Congress left no room for states to act. Further, since Hoffman found benefits other than back-pay to be applicable to illegal aliens, there is no conflict between state and federal law in this case. See Hoffman, 122 S.Ct. at 1285. The United States Supreme Court has stated that workers’ compensation is an area where states have authority to regulate under their police powers. See De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356, 96 S.Ct. 933, 937, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 (1976). Therefore, we conclude that the Florida legislature’s right to enact workers’ compensation benefits for illegal aliens is not preempted by federal action. The JCC’s award of benefits is
AFFIRMED.
WOLF, C.J., and BROWNING, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simmons v. State, 886 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…contrary to any federal law or that federal law so thoroughly occupies the legislative field as to require a reasonable inference that Congress left no room for it to be supplemented by state law. See Safeharbor Employer Servs. I, Inc. v. Velazquez, 860 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(rejecting the federal law preemption argument because there was no express preemption language, no conflict between state and federal law, and the federal law did not thoroughly occupy the field of law). Conclusion Therefore, w…
-
Agustin Arreola v. Admin. Concepts & S. Eagle Ins. Co., 17 So. 3d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…is not the act, but the intent behind the act, that dictates the result. Illegal aliens are, of course, covered by the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law. See § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006); Safeharbor Employer Servs. I, Inc. v. Cinto Velazquez, 860 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). However, no special rules apply to undocumented workers. Like any other employee, they must comply with the statute in order to obtain the statute’s benefits. In order to be self-executing, the statute requires everyone to be tr…
-
HDV Constr. Sys., Inc. v. Aragon, 66 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…Law. See § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007) (defining “employee” to include any person who receives remuneration from an employer, including aliens, whether “lawfully or unlawfully employed”); see also Safeharbor Employer Servs., Inc. v. Velazquez, 860 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“Therefore, we conclude that the Florida legislature’s right to enact workers’ compensation benefits for illegal aliens is not preempted by federal action.”). Indeed, the purpose of workers’ compensation law is to place on indus…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1976)
- Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 535 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2002)
- Gene's Harvesting & Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 421 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Winton Harrell v. Fla. Constr. Specialists/Aarla/Agent FOR Fwciga, 834 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Wilson v. State, 478 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Cenvill Dev. Corp. & E.S.I.S., Inc. v. Candelo, 478 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)