# Agri Processor Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · January 4, 2008 · 514 F.3d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439641

## Case

- **Full name:** AGRI PROCESSOR CO., INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** January 4, 2008
- **Citations:** 514 F.3d 1; 379 U.S. App. D.C. 318; 183 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2394; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 101
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Henderson
- **Judges:** Henderson, Tatel, Kavanaugh
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439641

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, notwithstanding Hoffman, undocumented immigrants still qualify as “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act, and citing with approval Patel v. Quality Inn S., 846 F.2d 700, 704-05 (11th Cir.1988), which issued a similar holding with respect to the FLSA

## Opinion text

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
It seems “somewhat peculiar” indeed, as Board Member Kirsanow observed, to order an employer “to bargain with a union representing employees that the [employer] would be required to discharge under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a.” Agri Processor Co., 347 N.L.R.B. No. 107, at 1 n. 2 (2006). Moreover, as the dissent makes clear, it is hard to ignore Sure-Tan’s reliance on the absence of any provision in the Immigra *10 tion and Naturalization Act making it “a separate criminal offense for an alien to accept employment after entering this country illegally,” Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 893, 104 S.Ct. 2803 , 81 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984), and the fact that, shortly thereafter, the Congress enacted IRCA, which does precisely that. Nonetheless, Sure-Tan concluded that the broad statutory definition of “employee” in the NLRA does not exclude an illegal immigrant and we must follow Sure-Tan’s interpretation until the Supreme Court otherwise directs or the Congress expressly limits the term’s scope. See Welch v. Tex. Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 478-79 , 107 S.Ct. 2941 , 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987). Accordingly, I join the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439641. Public record. Not legal advice.