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

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · March 17, 2000 · 237 F.3d 639

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439204

## Case

- **Full name:** HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** March 17, 2000
- **Citations:** 237 F.3d 639; 345 U.S. App. D.C. 1
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Ginsburg
- **Judges:** Edwards, Williams, Ginsburg, Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Silberman
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137 (2002).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439204

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439204. Public record. Not legal advice.