Download Chapter 4 - Constitutional Authority to Regulate Business

BLTS-9e Case Problem with Sample Answer
Chapter 24:
Employment, Immigration, and Labor Law
24.6 Case Problem with Sample Answer
Nicole Tipton and Sadik Seferi owned and operated a restaurant in Iowa. Acting
on a tip from the local police, agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
executed search warrants at the restaurant and at an apartment where some
restaurant workers lived. The agents discovered six undocumented aliens
working at the restaurant and living together. When the I-9 forms for the
restaurant’s employees were reviewed, none were found for the six aliens. They
were paid in cash while other employees were paid by check. The jury found
Tipton and Seferi guilty of hiring and harboring illegal aliens. Both were given
prison terms. The defendants challenged the conviction, contending that they did
not violate the law because they did not know that the workers were
unauthorized aliens. Was that argument credible? Why or why not? [United
States v. Tipton, 518 F.3d 591 (8th Cir. 2008)]
Sample Answer:
Conviction affirmed. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for
hiring and harboring illegal aliens. Given the way the restaurant was run and the
differential treatment of employees, it was clear the defendants knew I-9 forms
were required as they kept them for most employees, but not for the
undocumented workers. They also paid them in cash and did not pay taxes on
behalf of those workers. They also maintained an apartment for those workers
only. Separate accounts were maintained for the undocumented workers. It is
clear from this evidence that Tipton and Seferi knew the workers were illegal and
they did not comply with employment verification procedures and other
employment law requirements.