University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., et al IM-CA-0015
Docket / Court CV-F-99-6443 ( E.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration
Attorney Organization ACLU National Prison Project
Legal Services/Legal Aid
Case Summary
On October 1, 1999, twenty-five Latina and Southeast Asian female immigrants once employed as factory workers by NIBCO, Inc. in Fresno, California brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging national origin discrimination under Title VII of the ... read more >
On October 1, 1999, twenty-five Latina and Southeast Asian female immigrants once employed as factory workers by NIBCO, Inc. in Fresno, California brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") Cal. Gov't Code § 12940, et. seq. Plaintiffs specifically allege that their former employer used a written English proficiency test, which had nothing to do with their job duties, to terminate their employment. Plaintiffs were represented by a coalition of civil rights organizations and private law firms, which included the Employment Law Center - Legal Aid Society of San Francisco, the ACLU of Northern California, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Asian Law Caucus. They sought reinstatement or front pay, backpay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

During discovery, defendants deposed the lead plaintiff Martha Rivera and asked about her immigration status and employment history. Plaintiffs' counsel instructed her not to answer further questions, terminated her deposition, and sought a protective order from the Court. Plaintiffs maintained that the information was irrelevant and its disclosure during the discovery process would chill the plaintiffs' willingness and ability to bring civil rights claims, as they would potentially face removal proceedings if they were found to be undocumented workers. The District Court (Magistrate Judge Sandra Snyder) granted relief to plaintiffs and issued a protective order prohibiting NIBCO from inquiring into the plaintiffs' immigration status and eligibility for employment. The court permitted defendants to ask other indirect questions relating to place of marriage, educational background, current and past employment, but defendants were not allowed to disclose that information to third parties outside of the lawsuit. Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 647 (E.D. Cal. 2001), reconsideration denied, 2001 WL 1688880 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2001).

In the interim, the Supreme Court decided Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), holding that the National Labor Relations Board lacked the discretion to award backpay to undocumented workers for violations of the National Labor Relations Act. Defendants filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration based on the Hoffman decision. The District Court then certified the case to allow defendants to pursue an interlocutory appeal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. While the Court did not decide whether the Hoffman case applied to Title VII claims, it found that the decision did not make immigration status relevant to a finding that an employer engaged in national origin discrimination under Title VII, and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion by entering the protective order. Rivera v. NIBCO, 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). Defendants' petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied, Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 384 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2004), as was their petition for a writ of certiorari. NIBCO, Inc. v. Rivera, 544 U.S. 905 (2005).

On remand, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. They also argued over how the case should be presented to a jury. Plaintiffs agreed that any of the plaintiffs who were not legally entitled to work would not seek backpay. In order to comply with the protective order, plaintiffs moved for a bifurcated trial, such that the Court would decide which plaintiffs were entitled to backpay by reviewing evidence in camera. Over the objection of defendants, the Court issued an order bifurcating the trial. Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 2006 WL 845925 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2006).

A jury trial began on October 8, 2008 before District Judge Oliver W. Wanger. On November 26, 2008, following twenty-seven days of trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants on all counts against all plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed the judgment.

On March 29, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. A divided panel held that the District Court had clearly erred in denying plaintiffs' Batson challenge to defendants' use of three of its four peremptory strikes to remove Hispanic jurors. Rivera v. Nibco, Inc., 372 F. App'x 757 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 906 (2011).

On September 27, 2011, the parties notified the court that they were close to a settlement. On December 6, 2011, a settlement conference was held before Magistrate Judge Snyder. The minute entry notes that a written settlement had been completed, and that "settlement funds [were] to be transmitted soon." The specifics of the settlement agreement do not appear to have been filed with the court. On December 7, 2011, the parties stipulated that the action be dismissed with prejudice; the stipulation was entered the same day.

Dan Dalton - 12/03/2007
Tania Morris Diaz - 11/05/2014
Dan Whitman - 03/06/2015


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Discrimination-basis
Language discrimination
National origin discrimination
Immigration
Employment
National Origin/Ethnicity
Hispanic
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Race
Asian/Pacific Islander
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
State law
Defendant(s) NIBCO, Inc.
Plaintiff Description Twenty-five Latina and Southeast Asian female immigrants once employed as factory workers by NIBCO, Inc. who were fired for failing a written English proficiency test.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU National Prison Project
Legal Services/Legal Aid
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Private Settlement Agreement
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2011
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Threats to the Future of the Immigration Class Action
Washington University Journal of Law and Policy
By: Jill E. Family (Widener University School of Law)
Citation: 27 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 71 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:99-cv-06443-AWI-SMS (E.D. Cal.) 12/07/2011
IM-CA-0015-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Protective Order Re Conduct Of Defendants’ Depositions Of Plaintiffs 05/21/2001
IM-CA-0015-0003 PDF | Detail
Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief In Support Of Motion For Protective Order Re Conduct Of Defendants’ Depositions Of Plaintiffs 06/04/2001
IM-CA-0015-0004 PDF | Detail
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order 06/18/2001 (204 F.R.D. 647) (E.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0015-0001 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendants’ Request For Reconsideration By The District Court Of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling 07/03/2001
IM-CA-0015-0005 PDF | Detail
Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief In Opposition To Defendants’ Request For Reconsideration 11/13/2001
IM-CA-0015-0006 PDF | Detail
Opinion 12/21/2001 (2001 WL 1688880 / 2001 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 22261) (E.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0015-0010 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Order [RE: Resolution of Discovery Dispute] 01/25/2002 (E.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0015-0002 PDF | Detail
Plaintiffs’ Brief In Opposition To Defendants’ Motion For Reconsideration Of Protective Order, To Open Discovery And To Extend Trial Date 04/17/2002
IM-CA-0015-0007 PDF | Detail
Opinion 04/13/2004 (364 F.3d 1057)
IM-CA-0015-0008 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 09/20/2004 (384 F.3d 822)
IM-CA-0015-0009 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 03/31/2006 (2006 WL 845925 / 2006 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 16967) (E.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0015-0011 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Special Verdicts of Trial Jury 11/26/2008
IM-CA-0015-0013 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Ninth Circuit opinion reversing and remanding judgment 03/29/2010 (372 Fed.Appx. 757)
IM-CA-0015-0012 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Hawkins, Michael Daly (Ninth Circuit)
IM-CA-0015-0008 | IM-CA-0015-0012
Ishii, Anthony W. (E.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0015-0008 | IM-CA-0015-0010 | IM-CA-0015-9000
O'Neill, Lawrence Joseph (E.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
IM-CA-0015-9000
Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (Ninth Circuit)
IM-CA-0015-0008 | IM-CA-0015-0012
Siler, Eugene Edward Jr. (E.D. Ky., W.D. Ky., Sixth Circuit)
IM-CA-0015-0008 | IM-CA-0015-0012
Snyder, Sandra M. (E.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
IM-CA-0015-0001 | IM-CA-0015-0002 | IM-CA-0015-9000
Wanger, Oliver Winston (E.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0015-0012
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Chang, Joannie C. (California)
IM-CA-0015-0007 | IM-CA-0015-0011 | IM-CA-0015-9000
Chen, Edward Milton (California)
IM-CA-0015-9000
Duarte, Lisa (California)
IM-CA-0015-0011 | IM-CA-0015-9000
Fernandez, Donya (California)
IM-CA-0015-0003 | IM-CA-0015-0004 | IM-CA-0015-0005 | IM-CA-0015-0006 | IM-CA-0015-0007 | IM-CA-0015-9000
Figueira-McDonough, Julia (California)
IM-CA-0015-0003 | IM-CA-0015-0004 | IM-CA-0015-0005
Hincapie, Marielena (California)
IM-CA-0015-0003 | IM-CA-0015-0004 | IM-CA-0015-0005 | IM-CA-0015-0006 | IM-CA-0015-0007 | IM-CA-0015-0011 | IM-CA-0015-9000
Ho, Christopher (California)
IM-CA-0015-0003 | IM-CA-0015-0004 | IM-CA-0015-0005 | IM-CA-0015-0006 | IM-CA-0015-0007 | IM-CA-0015-0008 | IM-CA-0015-0009 | IM-CA-0015-0011 | IM-CA-0015-9000
Nguyen, Willie N. (California)
IM-CA-0015-0011
Richtel, Melvin M. (California)
IM-CA-0015-0003 | IM-CA-0015-0004 | IM-CA-0015-0005 | IM-CA-0015-0006 | IM-CA-0015-0007
Schlosser, Alan Lawrence (California)
IM-CA-0015-0003 | IM-CA-0015-0004 | IM-CA-0015-0005 | IM-CA-0015-0006 | IM-CA-0015-9000
Smith, William J. (California)
IM-CA-0015-0003 | IM-CA-0015-0004 | IM-CA-0015-0005 | IM-CA-0015-0006 | IM-CA-0015-0007 | IM-CA-0015-0011 | IM-CA-0015-9000
Srikantiah, Jayashri (California)
IM-CA-0015-0007
Yamauchi, Brad (California)
IM-CA-0015-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Enos, Brian (California)
IM-CA-0015-9000
Hahesy, William (California)
IM-CA-0015-0009 | IM-CA-0015-9000
Hedgpeth-Harris, Sara (California)
IM-CA-0015-0008 | IM-CA-0015-0009 | IM-CA-0015-9000
Helsley, Michael S. (California)
IM-CA-0015-9000
Kinsey, John P. (California)
IM-CA-0015-9000
Sagaser, Howard A. (California)
IM-CA-0015-0011 | IM-CA-0015-9000 | IM-CA-0015-9000
Wolfe, Sarah (California)
IM-CA-0015-9000
Other Lawyers Cummins, Brendan D. (Minnesota)
IM-CA-0015-0008 | IM-CA-0015-0009
Gilmore, David Malcolm (California)
IM-CA-0015-9000
Smith, Rebecca Ann (Washington)
IM-CA-0015-0008 | IM-CA-0015-0009
Sugimori, Amy (New York)
IM-CA-0015-0009

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -