UC may want to lose this case - Part 2

Back on October 5th, we took note of a lawsuit filed against the Regents for their decision not to permit hiring of undocumented students based on the legal risk.* Not all Regents were happy with the legal interpretation provided by UC's general counsel and some clearly wanted UC to go ahead and test the law. A lawsuit, which we took note of in a previous posting, challenged the UC position that IRCA prohibits a state-owned entity, such as UC, from such hiring.

As we noted at the time, it is not clear that UC wants to win this lawsuit. If it loses, it would be because of a court decision ruling that there is no prohibition and that UC is obligated by state law to allow such hiring. Being ordered to do something by a court would clearly lessen the legal risk. In any case, here is the essence of the challenge:

...It is unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against an employee because of the employee’s or applicant’s immigration status, unless the employer has shown by clear and convincing evidence that it is required to do so in order to comply with federal immigration law.” 

The Regents’ Policy plainly violates this prohibition. The Regents’ only justification for its overtly discriminatory policy is that IRCA requires it. But as previously explained, IRCA’s ban on hiring undocumented persons does not bind the UC. The plain text of the relevant provision of IRCA simply does not regulate States, and certainly does not evince an “unmistakably clear” intent to do so. The Regents accordingly cannot establish “by clear and convincing evidence” that the Policy is required “to comply with federal immigration law.” ...

Full filing available at:

https://law.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/PDFs/Center_for_Immigration_Law_and_Policy/Uma%C3%B1a_Mu%C3%B1oz_and_Perez_v_Regents_of_Univ_of_Cal.pdf.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2024/10/uc-may-want-to-lose-this-case.html.