Opinion

Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

237 F.3d 639
345 U.S. App. D.C. 1

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Filed: Mar 17, 2000
Status: Published
Author: Ginsburg
On the bench: Edwards, Williams, Ginsburg, Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Silberman
Cited by: 8 cases
Authority: More cited than 24.4%

Reversed on other grounds by Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137 (2002)

holding that the respondents do not have standing to assert the equal protection rights of third parties

How later courts described this case

holding that the respondents do not have standing to assert the equal protection rights of third parties

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

GINSBURG, Circuit Judge,

dissenting:

I join Judge Sentelle’s dissent insofar as he demonstrates that in Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 , 104 S.Ct. 2803 , 81 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984), “the Supreme Court has definitively answered the question before us.” Dissent at 652. The court today simply cannot convincingly evade the High Court’s clear statement that “in computing backpay, the employees must be deemed ‘unavailable’ for work (and the accrual of back pay therefore tolled) during any period when they were not lawfully entitled to be present and employed in the United States.” 467 U.S. at 903 , 104 S.Ct. 2803 .

Because I believe that Sure-Tan is controlling, I do not think it necessary to reach the question whether the Board reasonably reconciled the remedial scheme of the NLRA with the policies embodied in the IRCA.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.