2 Mexican American Bar Association of Los Angeles County

• • •

EXECUTIVE BOARD

Denisse O. GastélumPresident

Oscar R. GutierrezPresident-Elect

Ana Nájera MendozaVice-President

Marisa Hernández-SternSecretary

Monica GuizarTreasurer

Juan RedínNewsletter Editor

Sandra C. MuñozMembership Director

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Paul Aguilar

Beatriz Alfaro

Enrique Arevalo

Eric Canton

Kevin Keeland

Marisa Montes

Claudia Perez

Juan Ramos

Leonard Torrealba

Heriberto Veliz

• • •

Chloressa NeblinaStudent Trustee

Alejandro Becerra2017 Past President

Claudia PerezAdministrator

• • •

MAIN OFFICEMexican American Bar Association

of Los Angeles County714 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 450

Los Angeles, CA 90015Tel: 213-749-2889 • Fax: 213-749-1740

2018 EXECUTIVE BOARDMEMBERS & TRUSTEES

Feature ArticleContinued from page 1

[email protected]

of immigrant workers, to

increased audits of employer I-9

records, immigrant workers need

to be prepared for potential

impacts to their jobs and

livelihoods in the event of an

immigration worksite

enforcement action.

For many workers, a government

I-9 audit or an employer’s

improper use of E-Verify can

result in unjust job loss. Labor

unions provide enhanced

protections for immigrant

workers who are often

incorrectly terminated based on

an I-9 audit or an employer’s

improper use of E-Verify. This is

because employers are required

to notify and bargain with the

union, the represented

employees’ exclusive bargaining

representative, over terms and

conditions of employment. This

article summarizes a recent

decision issued by the National

Labor Relations Board (“Board”)

concerning employer obligations

and rights of union and worker

when dealing with worksite

enforcement of immigration law

and summarizes applicable

California law.

On August 27, 2018, the Board

issued a decision upholding the

application of federal labor law

to information that an employer

receives as a result of a

government I-9 audit and to

employer registration for E-

Verify. The employer in the

decision, The Ruprecht Company

(“Ruprech” or “Company”), is a

meat processing company in

Mundelein, Illinois. Certain

employees who worked on the

Company’s operation line were

represented by a labor union,

UNITE HERE Local 1 (“Union”).

In or about January of 2015, the

Company was issued a

subpoena by ICE for the

company’s I-9 records and an

investigation into those records

commenced. The Company did

not inform the Union regarding

the I-9 inspection. Later, in May

of that year, the Company,

without notifying the Union,

registered for and began using

E-Verify.

When employees raised

concerns to the Union about a

potential I-9 audit, the Union

contacted Ruprecht in June to

discuss the issue of the audit.

Only then–nearly six months

later–Ruprecht confirmed that

there was an ongoing ICE I-9

audit. In July of 2015, Ruprecht

received a letter from ICE

regarding the apprehension of

eight of its employees and later

received another a letter from

ICE informing Ruprecht that 194


www.mabaattorneys.com 3

Calendar of EventsEditor’s Note

Dear MABISTAS,

It has been an honor

and a privilege to serve

as the 2018 Newsletter

Editor. Thank you for all

of your support during a

very difficult time. Rhetorical, political,

and even physical attacks have been

hurled at and suffered by the immigrant

community, our LGBTQ family, women,

people of color, Muslims, Jews, and the

free press, among others. Our Board of

Directors has done an amazing job

responding to many pressing issues

during this past year.

Most recently the Civil Rights

Committee collaborated with leading

national organizations to oppose

proposed federal regulations which will

lead to indefinite detention of

immigrant families. If you have not

submitted a comment opposing these

regulations please submit one TODAY

at: www.stopfamilydetention.org.

The deadline to submit a comment is

November 6.

Speaking of November 6, please

remember to exercise your right to

vote, and vote for respect and dignity

for all of our communities.

Juan J. Redín

Newsletter Editor

November 9, 2018

Juan Redín

Juan Redín

MABA Golf Tournament at Quiet Cannon See ad.

For more information on any of the events listed, pleasecall our office at 213-749-2889. Thank you.

4 Mexican American Bar Association of Los Angeles County

2017 Alejandro Becerra

2016 Maria Ramirez

2015 Cindy Pánuco

2014 Erick Solares

2013 Elizabeth P. Uribe

2012 Rigoberto J. Arrechiga

2011 Victor Acevedo

2010 Judy Perez

2009 Mario Trujillo

2008 Pete Navarro

2007 Efrain Matthew Aceves

2006 Claire Cifuentes

2005 Alan R. Diamante

2004 Edward Ortega

2003 Maribel Medina

2002 Cristina Perez-Gonzalez

2001 Luis Rodriguez

2000 James E. Blancarte

1999 Arnoldo Casillas

1998 M. Leslie Stearns

1997 Maria Villa

1996 Yvonne Flores

1995 Enrique Arevalo

1994 Martha Melendez

1993 Martha Romero

1992 Raul Granados

1991 Raul Ayala

1990 Marcia Gonzales-Kimbrough

1989 Debra Gonzales

1988 Monica Jimenez

1987 Gustavo Barcena

1986 Armando Duron

1985 Carlos Zaragoza

1984 Jaime Cervantes*

1983 James E. Blancarte

1982 Honorable Carlos Moreno

1981 Esther Valadez

1980 Oscar Parra

1979 Daniel Garcia

1978 Honorable John Martinez

1977 Honorable Ben Aranda*

1976 Lawrence De Fuentes*

1975 Frank Munoz*

1974 Stanley Delnick*

1973 Honorable Joseph Armijo*

1972 Ernest Gallego

1971 Honorable Victor Chavez

1970 Oscar Munguia*

1969 Lorenzo Pereyda*

1968 Manuel Aranda (resigned)

1967 Manuel Valenzuela*

1966 Martin Castillo

1965 Honorable Ray Cardenas

1964 Herman Sillas

1963 Manuel S. Martinez*

MABA PAST PRESIDENTS

Not yet a MABA member?Joining is simple.

Visit us at www.mabaattorneys.com today.

Thank you in advance for your generous support and

we hope to see you at our upcoming events.

* Deceased

Mexican American Bar Association of Los Angeles County6

Los Angeles – On September 6, 2018, the Los

Angeles Ethnic/Minority Bar Associations’ Meet &

Greet with Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom was held in

the Centennial Ballroom of the Los Angeles

Athletic Club. MABA secured the participation

from the following 16 minority/ethnic bar

associations: Asian Pacific American Bar

Association; Asian Pacific American Women

Lawyers Alliance; Black Women Lawyers

Association of Los Angeles; California Association

of Black Lawyers; Hispanic National Bar

Association; Iranian American Bar Association;

Iranian American Lawyers Association; Japanese

American Bar Association; John M. Langston Bar

Association of Los Angeles; Latina Lawyers Bar

Association; LGBT Bar Association of Los

Angeles; Multicultural Bar Alliance; Philippine

American Bar Association; Southern California

Chinese Lawyers Association; and Women

Lawyers Association of Los Angeles. It was clear

from the energy and resolve in the room that the

bar leaders meant business and that the coalition

would remain intact until the threats to our

communities ceased and adequate safeguards

MABA Organizes the Los Angeles Ethnic/Minority BarAssociations’ Meet & Greet with Lt. Gov. Gavin NewsomBy Denisse O. Gastélum


were implemented to protect our communities.

This strong and vibrant coalition was formed

under the backdrop of the 2016 U.S. presidential

election. It was during this time that the local

minority/ethnic bar associations noticed a certain

hateful political climate begin to resurface in our

country, and in direct response, the bar

associations came together to organize

townhalls, roundtables and volunteer

opportunities geared towards mobilizing the Los

Angeles legal community.

Lt. Gov. Newsom attended the event with a keen

interest in getting to know the bar leaders and

understand the issues important to our

communities. He provided thoughtful responses

to questions posed to him regarding immigration,

LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, and issues

impacting the Iranian-American community. The

gathering inspired hope for California and our

nation’s future.

Spain – Every year, MABA organizes a trip to an exciting,

far-off destination like Argentina, Belize, Cuba, and Mexico,

among others. This year, MABA members, judicial officers,

family and friends enjoyed an amazing trip of a lifetime to

Spain. Modern Madrid, the walled city of Avila, the 2000-

year-old aqueduct in Segovia, Toledo, the original capital of

Spain, the ancient city of Cordoba, the Alhambra in

Granada, and the beautiful city of Sevilla where Flamenco is

still a can’t miss form of nightlife.

MABA’s great adventure began upon landing in Madrid with

dinner at the world famous “El Botin”, a restaurant best

known for being open continuously for over 400 years.

Thereafter, meals were gourmet quality, including roast

suckling pig at the palatial, “El Mason de Candido” in

Segovia; a walking tour through the narrow, winding streets

of Toledo left most of us breathless, and some of us, like me,

simply out of breath. On the way to Cordoba we stopped to

see the windmills made famous by “Don Quixote” and

“Sancho Panza.” Once in Cordoba, we marveled at the

Catholic Cathedral constructed inside the walls of “La

Continued on the next page.

MABA Goes to SPAIN


Mesquita,” the Great Mosque which was the

center of the Muslim religion for most of the over

700 years the Moors occupied the Iberian

Peninsula. Just when we thought the sights and

sounds of Spain could not get any better, MABA

visited the Alhambra, the sultan palace and fortress

where Washington Irving wrote the popular and

well-known “Tales of the Ahlambra” in his room

overlooking what he called the “picturesque and

beautiful” city of Granada. In Sevilla, which is the

heart and soul of Andalusia, we were treated to an

evening of first class Flamenco dancing and a

delightful dinner that included tasty appetizers,

great main courses and ever-flowing Spanish wine.

Lest you think MABA’s 2018 trip to Spain was only

about food and fun, think again. It was a cultural

and educational experience that included a guided

tour of the Prado Museum in Madrid, which many

art experts say is second only to the Louvre in Paris.

At the Prado we saw masterpieces by Spanish

Masters including, Cervantes, Goya, Velasquez,

and El Greco. MABA attorneys and judicial officers

also earned their MCLE credits with a presentation

by Judge Shelly Torrealba regarding the status of

the courts in the Los Angeles

County Superior Court, a

presentation by Commissioner

James E. Blancarte about Domestic

Violence Restraining Orders, and a

presentation by Justice Carlos

Moreno, Ret. and Judge Teresa

Sanchez Gordon, Ret. regarding

mediation and ADR. MABA’s

attorneys and judicial officers also

met with the President of the High

Court of Justice of Andalusia

known as the Tribunal Superior de

Justicia de Andalucía and Professor

Gerardo Ruiz-Rico Ruiz of the

University of Jaen and engaged in a

thoughtful discussion regarding the legal systems

and procedures in Spain.

Over the years, MABA’s trips abroad have also

become increasingly popular with judicial officers

of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. This

year was no exception. The bench officers on

MABA’s 2018 trip to Spain included former

California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno,

Ret., Judge Teresa-Sanchez-Gordon, Ret., Judge

Shelly Torrealba, Judge Robert Hess, Ret., Judge

Malcolm Mackey, Judge Bobbi Tilmon, Judge

Jeffrey K. Winikow, Ret., Judge John Ing, Ret.,

Judge Mary Lou Villar, Judge Teresa P. Mago, and

Commissioner James E. Blancarte.

MABA’s 2018 trip to Spain was a great and

memorable success because of the hard work of

MABA President, Denisse O. Gastélum, and the

members of the MABA GOES TO SPAIN 2018!

Organizing Committee which included Enrique

Arevalo, James Blancarte, Jr., Judge Shelly

Torrealba, Judge Teresa Sanchez Gordon, Ret.,

Justice Carlos Moreno, Ret., and myself,

Commissioner James E. Blancarte.

MABA visited the Alhambra, the sultan palace and

fortress where Washington Irving wrote the popular and

well-known “Tales of the Ahlambra” in his room

overlooking what he called the “picturesque and

beautiful” city of Granada.


of its employees did not appear to be authorized

to work in the United States. The Union

requested copies of the letters from ICE.

Ruprecht provided copies of the letters from ICE

with the employee’s names redacted. The Union

requested unredacted copies of that

correspondence and Ruprecht refused to

provide the unredacted

information claiming that

the “names of unit

employees affected

by the audit were

confidential,” and

that it needed

some assurances

that the information

would be treated with

confidentiality. One day after

informing the Union of the need for

confidentiality and before the Union could

respond to Ruprecht’s request for confidentiality,

Ruprecht began terminating the affected

bargaining unit employees. Approximately two

weeks after Ruprecht began terminating the

employees, it drafted a confidentiality agreement

for the Union to review. The Union did not enter

into the confidentiality agreement and Ruprecht

did not provide the Union with the unredacted

copies of the letters.

The Union filed unfair labor practice charges

against Ruprecht alleging violations of the

National Labor Relations Act (“Act”). The case

was heard before an Administrative Law Judge

(“ALJ”). The ALJ ruled in favor of the Union and

the Company appealed to the full Board. In The

Ruprecht Company and UNITE HERE Local 1, 366

NLRB No. 179 (2018), the Board found that the

employer, Ruprecht, violated Section 8(a)(5) and

(1) of the Act when it unilaterally enrolled in the

E-Verify program. The Board also found that

Ruprecht violated the Act by dealing directly with

the bargaining unit employees over severance pay

and a general release of claims against Ruprecht

based on having been identified by ICE as

employees with suspect employment

authorization documents. Finally,

the Board also found that

Ruprecht violated the

Act by refusing to

provide the Union

with unredacted

copies of the ICE

letters identifying the

individual bargaining

unit employees that the

government suspected of

having improper employment

authorization documents.

With respect to the employer’s unilateral

enrollment in E-Verify, the Board found that

Ruprecht’s unilateral actions “compromise the

Union’s ability, and the [employer’s] incentive, to

engage in that give-and-take process with respect

to E-Verify by changing the starting point for

bargaining.” The Board further held that once

the employer “enrolled in the program, it had the

greater leverage.” The Board noted that the

Union was placed in a position of “offering

concessions to persuade the [employer] to restore

the status quo and quit the program” and

therefore that the Union had “far less bargaining

leverage then it would have enjoyed” had the

employer notified the Union and sought the

Union’s agreement to enroll in E-Verify initially.

Because Ruprecht did not notify the Union about

its enrollment in E-Verify or provide the Union


“The Union did not enter intothe confidentiality agreementand Ruprecht did not providethe Union with the unredacted

copies of the letters.”




with an opportunity to bargain about its

enrollment until after it had already enrolled in

the program, the Board issued a remedy requiring

Ruprecht to rescind its enrollment and re-verify

and bargain over that subject if the Union desire

to do so.

The Board found that Ruprecht violated the Act

at Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to furnish

the unredacted copies of the notices from ICE

concerning the audit. The Board, citing NLRB v.

ACME Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967), held

an employer has a statutory obligation to provide

requested information that is potentially relevant

to a Union’s fulfillment of its responsibilities as

employees’ exclusive bargaining representative.

The Board, agreeing with the ALJ, found that the

names of the employees affected by the ICE I-9

audit and investigation were indeed relevant to

the Union’s representative duties. The Board

therefore found that Ruprecht’s refusal to provide

the information to the Union was unlawful and

that Ruprecht had failed to establish a valid

defense for failing to provide that information.

The Board also found that Ruprecht failed to

meet its statutory obligations with respect to

asserting confidentiality as a reason for not

providing information. First, a party claiming

confidentiality as a reason for withholding

information must establish that the actual

information requested is confidential. See

Menorah Medical Center, 362 NLRB No. 193

(2015), enforced in relevant part 863 F.3rd 1288,

1300 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The Board has also held

that information is not to be deemed confidential

simply because a party has labeled it as such. See

Bud Antle Inc., 359 NLRB 1247, 1267 (2013).

The Board, without finding whether or not the

names of individual employees listed on the

notice of suspect documents was indeed

confidential, found that Ruprecht waived its

confidentiality defense because it did not timely

assert its confidentiality interest, propose a

reasonable accommodation, or engaged in

accommodation bargaining with the Union. See

Postal Service, 364 NLRB No. 27 slip up. at 2

(2016). The facts leading to the Board’s decision

with respect to Ruprecht waiving the

confidentiality defense was based on its untimely

assertion of confidentiality and a proposal for a

confidentiality agreement. In the Board’s words

the assertions by Ruprecht were “too little, too

late.” Finally, the Board also found that Ruprecht

had a responsibility to timely propose an

accommodation with respect to confidentiality

and failed to do so, citing the well established

principle that a party asserting confidentiality has

a burden of proposing the accommodation.

Postal Service, 364 NLRB No. 2727 slip up. at 2

(2016), citing Borgess Medical Center, 342 NLRB

1105, 1106 (2014).

The Board issued a remedy requiring the

employer, at the request of the Union, to

negotiate with the Union over the terms and

severance payments to the terminated employees

who were affected by the I-9 audit. The Board

also ordered that Ruprecht provide the Union

with the unredacted copies of the letters from

ICE, and upon, request from the Union, that it

rescind participation in the E-Verify program and

bargain in good faith with the Union regarding its

participation in the program.

Providing employees with timely information

about I-9 audits is important for workers because

these audits have the potential to impact their



eligibility to work or continued employment.

Indeed, many workers, particularly immigrant

workers, are often mistakenly identified by ICE as

individuals who may not be authorized to work.

Because employers are required to take certain

steps with respect to those employees who are

identified by ICE as not being eligible to work, it

is important for workers to have the information

to be able to provide necessary documentation,

to be able to consult with legal counsel regarding

any concerns with respect to employment

authorization or immigration status generally.

For these reasons, in California, as of January 1,

2018, employers who are served with a notice of

inspection for an I-9 audit are required to post a

notice so that all employees are aware that an

audit is taking place. See Labor Code Section

90.2. California law also requires that employers,

upon conclusion of the I-9 audit, notify affected

employees who have been identified by ICE as

individuals who may have deficiencies in their

work authorization and to provide them with

information needed to rectify any potential

problems with their authorization to work. See

Labor Code Section 90.2.

As demonstrated by the Board’s decision in

Ruprecht, workers represented by a labor union,

however, have additional protections and rights.

For example, an union can represent and bargain

over the amount of time to reverify an

employee’s work authorization documents, or to

bargain over additional accommodations such as

a leave of absence while the employee’s work

authorization documents are resolved, or

negotiating severance pay for employees who are

unable to resolve employment authorization

issues.

1 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b) requires employers to

verify the identity and employment eligibility of

all individuals hired in the U.S. after November 6,

1986. Employers are to verify this information,

complete a Form I-9, and retain for a period of

three years after the date of the hire or one year

after the date the individual's employment is

terminated, whichever is later. 8 C.F.R. §

274a.2(b)(2)(B). Employers are required to

maintain for inspection original Forms I-9. 8

U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(3). The federal government

conducts audits of the Forms I-9 upon three days

notice.

E-Verify allows employers to verify the eligibility

of new hires to work in the United States. E-

Verify can only be used for new hires and

employers are prohibited from misusing the

system. Employees are often mistakenly

identified as tentatively lacking work

authorization by the system, triggering employer

obligations and employee opportunity to rectify

the problem.


Los Angeles – On November 1, 2018, nearly 400

attendees - including government, non-profit, and

private attorneys, community leaders, and over

eighty active and retired bench officers from the

state and federal levels – packed the Crystal Ballroom

at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los

Angeles to celebrate the Mexican American Bar

Association’s annual Judges’ Night & Awards Dinner.

That evening, MABA recognized the Honorable

Sergio C. Tapia, II of the Superior Court of

California, County of Los Angeles with the Judicial

Community Service Award. The Honorable A.

Ashley Tabaddor, Immigration Judge for the United

States Immigration Court and the Honorable André

Birotte, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Central District of California, both received the

Benjamin Aranda, III Judge of the Year Award. The

Carlos R. Moreno Judicial Lifetime Excellence Award

was presented to Associate Justice Victoria M.

Chavez of the California Court of Appeal – Second

Appellate District.

The evening’s final award recipient was the MABA

México recipient of the Carlos R. Moreno Judicial

Lifetime Excellence Award – la Ministra Margarita

Beatriz Luna Ramos from la Suprema Corte de

Justicia de la Nación, the National Supreme Court of

Justice in México. Accompanying la Ministra Luna

Ramos from México were almost twenty attendees

from MABA México, including MABA México

President Jorge Fernando Ruiz Pérez and MABA

México President-Elect Cesar Yañez.

Last, a special thank you to all Judges’ Night &

Awards Dinner “Gavel Sponsors”: Platinum Gavel

Sponsors - Casillas & Associates and the Law Offices

of Oscar H. Gutierrez; Golden Gavel Sponsors –

Girardi|Keese; Silver Gavel Sponsors – California

Community Foundation; Mexican American Bar

Foundation; Signature Resolution; Shegerian &

Associates, Inc.; and Thrivent; Bronze Gavel

Sponsors – Guerra & Gutierrez Mortuaries and

Union Bank. MABA thanks you again for your

continued generosity and support!

As 2018 President-Elect, I hope to see you at our

2019 MABA Installation of Officers & Awards Gala

on March 9, 2019!

Muchísimas gracias!

Oscar René Gutiérrez

2018 MABA President-Elect

2018 Judges’ Night & Awards Dinner Chair

Judges’ Night 2018

dear friends -...

Documents