22 minute read
AG James Leads Coalition to Support Fast-Food Restaurant Workers
NEW YORK: New York Attorney General Letitia James on September 29 continued her efforts to stand up for workers’ rights, leading a coalition of 15 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief to defend a New York City statute that requires just cause to fire or reduce the hours of a fastfood chain employee. This law, which took effect in 2021, requires fast-food chain restaurants in New York City to provide a valid reason — such as unsatisfactory performance, misconduct, or a legitimate economic concern — before firing or reducing the hours of an employee. The brief argues that the law passed by New York City does not violate the National Labor Relations Act or the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. “Hardworking New Yorkers deserve to have the peace of mind that they won’t simply be fired for no legitimate reason,” said Attorney General James. “New York has the right to enact measures to protect our residents and their wellbeing, and this law helps protect workers from being taken advantage of by corporate powers. As Attorney General, I will always fight for hardworking New Yorkers and their families.” In the amicus brief, Attorney General James and her fellow attorneys general note that local and state authorities regularly enforce their labor laws to address violations of state minimum wage, overtime, prevailing wage, and other protections, and that this New York City statute is a part of that sovereign authority. The coalition brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asks the court to uphold the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which agreed that the just cause law is not preempted by federal law and does not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Attorney General James has consistently worked to defend workers’ rights and workplace protection laws, especially for low-wage workers and employees of major corporations. This past May, Attorney General James secured more than $2.9 million for hundreds of New York City Marriott workers who were denied full severance pay. In April, Attorney General James secured stolen wages for employees of a Manhattanbased pizzeria chain. Also in April, Attorney General James visited the Buffalo Starbucks which voted to unionize, to express her support for the workers as they fought for fairer pay and better working conditions from their multibillion-dollar company. In April 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Attorney General James demanded that fast-food restaurants provide personal protective equipment to their employees. In March 2019, Attorney General James joined fellow attorneys general in securing an agreement with
Workers in a NYC restaurant. Editorial credit: Andriy Blokhin / Shutterstock.com
Advertisement
Arby’s, Dunkin’ Brands, Five Guys Burgers and Fries, and Little Caesars to stop using “no-poach” agreements, which restrict the right of fast-food workers to move from one franchise to another within the same restaurant chain. Joining Attorney General James in filing this brief are the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and the District of Columbia.l
The Racist Origins of the Lawsuit Against Biden’s Immigration Enforcement Priorities
BY JOSEPH MEYERS, STAFF ATTORNEY THE NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT
Agroup of immigrant advocacy organizations filed an amicus brief in United States v. Texas last week, in which they highlight the unlawful, racist arguments behind Texas and Louisiana’s lawsuit against the Biden administration’s immigration enforcement priorities. In United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court will review a challenge brought by Texas and Louisiana to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) attempt to set immigration enforcement priorities. Texas and Louisiana claim they object to the increased costs that come with the policy, but their motivations are clear—keep immigrants out of their states. The brief argues that the states’ basis for claiming to have standing to bring this lawsuit are motivated by their discriminatory objection to the presence of noncitizens residents within their borders. This is not only an unlawful basis for standing but builds on a long history of racist and xenophobic tropes. As in any lawsuit, the states had to show they had “standing” to bring this case, a constitutional requirement that plaintiffs in a lawsuit have suffered a concrete injury that can be traced to an action of the defendant and is solvable by a court decision in their favor. In September 2021, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a memo setting new priorities for enforcing immigration laws, including the arrest, detention, and deportation of noncitizens, creating broad categories of individuals who should be priorities for enforcement. Texas and Louisiana quickly sued to challenge these priorities, securing an order enjoining them in June 2022. That injunction was upheld by the Fifth Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied the government’s attempt to lift the injunction pending appeal. The case is now pending before the Supreme Court and will be heard in December 2022. As with many other cases seeking to invalidate Biden administration immigration policies, Texas and Louisiana asserted that they have standing based on state spending on noncitizens residents, which includes costs of healthcare, education, and criminal detention and supervision. They claim that the mere fact of spending state resources on noncitizens is an injury to their states—even though state and federal law requires that state services generally be provided to all state residents, regardless of immigration status. As shown in the amicus brief, which was drafted by the NYU Immigrants’ Rights Clinic and the National Immigration Project (NIPNLG), Texas and Louisiana’s standing arguments are deeply flawed. Much of the states’ lawsuit claims to object to increased stated expenditures. But in reality, they are objecting to the mere presence of noncitizens in their borders. The states’ motivations are made clear by the fact that, while objecting to increased noncitizen presence, Texas and Louisiana have worked to encourage population growth and domestic migration from other states. The states have also publicly touted their success in doing so. For example, over the past several years, Governor Greg Abbot has repeatedly made clear that he believes population growth is a boon. In one tweet, Governor Abbot said that “Newcomers are welcome. They just need to help keep TX an appealing state.” Texas and Louisiana’s true motivations are cast in stark relief by their dogged harassment of noncitizens within their borders. In recent years, both Texas and Louisiana have passed a litany of antiimmigrant laws. The states’ general objection is not a lawful basis for a state to claim injury. It is well established that discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, or citizenship status is inherently suspect under the U.S. Constitution, including discrimination against noncitizens who are sub-
Editorial credit: Brandon Stivers / Shutterstock.com
ject to deportation. The Supreme Court has also made clear that a state’s desire to harm a politically unpopular group is not a legitimate interest for a state government to pursue. What’s more, Texas and Louisiana’s assertions of standing draw upon wellworn racist and xenophobic tropes describing immigrants as inherently burdensome on public resources and safety. The states’ position that immigrants are a costly burden echoes arguments made by eugenicists in the early 1900s in support of racially exclusionary immigration laws: that immigrations of racial groups they viewed as inferior and “criminally inclined” should be barred from entry lest they impose greater costs on state services. There is a direct throughline from those arguments to the states’ standing arguments in United States v. Texas. The rhetoric of “invasion” and the supposed threat that immigrants of color pose to America have been mobilized again and again over the course of the 20th century, including in opposition to accommodations for Haitian refugees fleeing the Duvalier regimes and Cubans during the 1980 Mariel Boatlift. In both cases, unfortunately, this racist rhetoric worked, and the legacy immigration service responded with harsher action against refugees, including mass detention. Today, in word and deed, Texas is giving new life to this familiar, dangerous rhetoric. Against this background, it is clear Texas and Louisiana’s claim that they are injured by the presence of noncitizens within their borders is closely tied to a long history of racist and xenophobic thought and action. The Court should reject their lawsuit for this reason.l
Publisher I.Q. INC.
TEAM
Legal Advisor Brian Figeroux, Esq.
Managing Editor & Editor-in-Chief Pearl Phillip
Senior Writer Linda Nwoke
Contributing Writers Janet Howard Chris Tobias Mary Campbell
Graphic & Website Designers Praim Samsoondar Kendrick Williams Anvar Sabirov
Email immjournal@aol.com
Visit www.ijlef.org www.askthelawyer.us
Volunteering at
THE IMMIGRANT'S JOURNAL LEGAL & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. Internship positions available throughout the year. The Immigrant's Journal Legal & Educational Fund, Inc. is an organization dedicated to the educational and economic empowerment of all immigrants and immigrant organizations here in the United States. We at the Journal recognize the enormous contribution of immigrants to this country economically, socially and politically. Since September 11, 2001, however, immigrants have increasingly been discriminated against and Congress has passed legislation curtailing the rights of immigrants here in the U.S., broadly claiming that immigrants are a threat to ''National Security.'' We at the Journal believe that these charges are unfounded, unsubstantiated and exaggerated. The Immigrant's Journal Volunteer Intern Program was introduced to give our volunteers the opportunity to work in an immigrant friendly environment while developing the necessary skills for college or law school. They assist our staff in resolving immigration and other legal concerns through personal interviews, radio, email and telephone contact. They also assist the public with citizenship applications and in researching whether or not children of naturalized U.S. citizens have derived citizenship from their parents. Some of our volunteers assist our legal staff by engaging in legal research and writing letters on other legal issues. Volunteer interns are also assigned various other jobs in our Youth Programs. Hours are flexible. Email your cover letter and resume or any questions to immjournal@aol.com
Know Your Rights with ICE
If approached by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents, you have rights! What can I do if ICE is at my door?
• You do not have to immediately open the door for ICE and you do not have to speak to ICE. • From behind the closed door, you may ask them who they are and to show their badge, ID or business card through the window or peephole or to pass it under the closed door. • You can ask if they have a judicial warrant:
If they say No, you do not have to let them in. You may say,
If they say Yes, you can ask them to slide it under the door. To know if it is a judicial warrant, look to see who signed the warrant. A judicial warrant is a warrant from a court, signed by a judge. For example, judge signatures may have “Honorable/Hon.” “Judge” “Justice” or “Magistrate” in front of them.
• In an emergency, such as a threat to public safety or a threat to someone’s life, ICE can come in without asking your permission. If this happens, you still do not have to speak to ICE. • If ICE is looking for someone, you do not need to speak. If you choose to speak, you can ask ICE to leave contact information. While you do not need to tell ICE where the person is located, providing false information puts you at risk.
What can I do if ICE is inside my home?
• If ICE enters your home without your permission, you can tell them clearly: “I do not consent to you being in my home. Please leave.” Saying this may not always stop them, but it may help any future legal case. • If ICE starts to search rooms or items in your home, you can tell them, “I do not consent to your search.” You can continue to repeat this if they continue to search without consent. • You can tell them if there are children or other vulnerable residents in your home.
What can I do if ICE stops me on the street or in public?
• Before you say anything, you can ask, “Am I free to go?”
If they say Yes: you can say,
“I don’t want to answer your questions”
If they say No: you can say,
If ICE agents try to search your pockets or belongings, you can say,
If they search you anyway, you cannot physically stop them, but clearly saying it may be important in any future legal case.
Asylum-Seekers Who Came Months Ago Still Say they Lack Housing, Legal Help Due to Immigration Status
BY GABRIEL POBLETE, THE CITY
Olga Rodriguez and her two boys were among the hundreds who went Monday to Riverbank Park in West Harlem to get free food, health coverage, and other kinds of assistance, having heard of the MetroPlus insurance company-sponsored event from her pastor. She and many others there are migrants who arrived in New York City months ago and are now trying to find their footing. The Colombian has been in the city since July, arriving around the time Mayor Eric Adams first acknowledged an uptick in asylum seekers coming to New York. Since then, she said she’s felt “atada” — which roughly translates to feeling powerless. Rodriguez lives in an emergency shelter in the Bronx with her children but hasn’t secured stable housing. She’s been unable to find work, given that her kids can’t be left alone at the shelter. And she needs money for a lawyer to assist her with her asylum case, but because she has no work, she has no income. New York continues to experience a wave of asylum seekers, many of whom arrive in the city without a place to stay. But migrants are struggling to leave shelters, with several key housing programs unavailable to them because of their immigration status. Many also don’t have access to free legal services to help them manage their asylum cases in federal immigration court, as they apply to be granted permanent stay in the United States. While migrants often say their long journey to the United States has been worthwhile, many also say that adapting to the city has been an uphill battle. “I ask myself, ‘did I do the right thing coming here? Or did I make a mistake?’” Rodriguez, who worked as a nurse in Colombia but fled her country due to domestic violence, said in Spanish. “People say, ‘all those who come here as immigrants suffer, we all suffer, and time has to pass, a year, six months, until you see results. Don’t ask for the impossible.’ And that makes me breathe again. But I do get depressed sometimes.” Albany Action Needed? Over 11,800 of the more than 15,500 asylum-seekers who have entered city shelters remain there, as of Sept. 28, according to numbers provided by the mayor’s office. The city has responded by activating 39 emergency shelters, and is in the process of constructing an emergency temporary tent shelter for asylum-seekers in the Orchard Beach parking lot in The Bronx. On Sept. 18, a Colombian mother of two who had been living since springtime in a city shelter in Hollis, Queens committed suicide. This drew attention to the plight of migrants stuck in city shelters without a path out. She had been separated from her husband at the border, who unsuccessfully tried three times to cross. She had struggled to find work, and she and her sons had to ration their food, Documented reported.
Hanif and Speaker Adrienne Adams led the hearing.Hiram Alejandro Durán/THE CITY
continued on page 6
Asylum-Seekers/ continued from page 5 “The tragic suicide of an asylum-seeker in city shelter earlier this month illustrates the consequences of lack of resources,” said City Councilmember Shahana Hanif, who chairs the Committee on Immigration, during an oversight hearing Friday on asylumseekers. At the hearing, Molly Park, first deputy commissioner of the Department of Homeless Services, highlighted one huge obstacle to securing housing: City vouchers are not available to new immigrants. Park said the matter is out of the city’s hands, and that expanding the program to asylum-seekers would need Albany’s action. “We are not legally allowed to provide CityFHEPS to those who are undocumented,” said Park, referring to a city rental assistance supplement. “In most cases in order to be able to pay ongoing rental assistance, even using city tax levy dollars, it requires state legislation.” Park also said the administration was contemplating a change to the policy requiring families to have lived in a city shelter for 90 days before qualifying for a voucher, which could help if the vouchers did become available to new immigrants. During this past fiscal year, which ran through the end of June, 5,235 single adults and 4,118 families who received subsidies exited the shelter system for permanent housing, according to the mayor’s latest management report. Only 1,800 single adults and 1,089 families in the general shelter population managed to exit without subsidies. Joshua Goldfein, staff attorney at the Legal Aid Society, told THE CITY he disagreed with Park’s claim that the state would have to approve legislation to allow CityFHEPS to go to migrants. He said City Council could pass a bill requiring the Adams administration to expand CityFHEPs to migrants, or the administration could do it independently. “If they would expand eligibility for those programs, beyond the very narrow limits of who is eligible for them right now, more people could move out of shelter,” Goldfein said. “That would also free up more shelter units that the city could use to house migrants so they wouldn’t have to open so many new shelters.” Asked about Park’s claim that state approval is needed, Goldfein told THE CITY: “We strongly disagree.” One family staying at Park West Hotel for three weeks said they haven’t received help from their social worker to move to more stable housing. The mother and father, who live with their 10year-old and asked not to be named for fear of retribution from hotel management, said they share one bed among the three of them and don’t receive much other than cold food they have to microwave. Additionally, the family cannot leave their child without supervision at the hotel when he’s not in school. When interviewed, the father was heading to his job at a hotel in Queens, but the mother had not yet left for her job at a fast food restaurant. Instead, she was waiting to see if another migrant at the hotel would take care of her son. “If they take me out of this hotel and to another place where there’s a kitchen so I can give my son an adequate meal, I’ll be happy,” the mother said. “I don’t care about the circumstances, even if it’s sleeping on the floor. But at least I could give my son a hot meal.”
Lawyers Wanted Reibeth Sanchez, a Venezuelan who arrived in the city two months ago, volunteered at Monday’s event. In his time here, Sanchez has obtained the city’s municipal identification card, IDNYC, and health insurance, and is now waiting for his Social Security card. His advice to others who want to make it in New York: “It’s not easy but it’s not impossible. But if they have a desire to come, they should come,” Sanchez said in Spanish. He found a construction job a month after moving to the city, after obtaining the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) certification needed to work in construction in the city. He’s living at a men’s shelter in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, where he shares a room with four others. The 27-year-old hopes to move to stable housing but said work isn’t steady and is scared of losing his shelter bed. But what Sanchez said he needs most help with is an attorney to help him manage his asylum case. Camille Mackler, executive director of the Immigrant Advocates Response Collaborative (ARC), said nonprofits that often help asylum seekers with their legal cases are overwhelmed right now, with cases postponed during the pandemic. “They don’t have the ability to hire a private attorney. They’re literally arriving here with nothing but the clothes on their back,” she said. “And so they need to rely on nonprofits, and nonprofits are just completely at capacity at this point.” Immigrant ARC has signed on to New York Immigrant Coalition’s Welcoming New York campaign, which is requesting the city and the state each provide $10 million to help asylum seekers with legal services, among other things.
Legal to Work For migrants, filing for asylum doesn’t just set them up for a legal stay in the U.S. — it also puts them on a path to work legally in the country. Mackler said that courts can take as much as three to four months to file each migrant’s case. Once 180 days have passed post-filing, migrants can apply for work permits. And with the current backlogs in asylum cases, it could take about another year to adjudicate a case. The need to get asylum seekers work permits is so pressing that Mayor Adams and other elected officials are urging the federal government to pass an emergency measure to speed up work authorization. The city also issued a $5 million solicitation for legal providers to help asylumseekers with their cases. Manuel Castro, commissioner of the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, said during Friday’s Council hearing that while the arduous asylum process could stretch years, the goal is to at least help applicants obtain work permits. “The reality is, it’s probably going to take perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars to be able to provide full legal representation to all the asylum-seekers that have arrived and will continue to arrive and immigrant communities who were already in New York,” Castro said. “The problem is that the federal government doesn’t provide legal representation for immigrants arriving in the country, leaving it to the individuals to figure out legal representation.” Venezuelans Erickson Guedez and Argelia Gimenez are also staying at the Park West Hotel with their 15- and 8year-old daughters, where they’ve been for the past month. Guedez said he’s grateful for the help he and his family have received from the city and other groups, saying that his daughters are delighted with school. Guedez, who arrived in New York a month-and-a-half ago, ahead of the rest of his family, said that apart from a couple of painting jobs, he hasn’t found steady work. But he said he’s hopeful that as he goes through the asylum proceedings, he’ll soon be able to work legally in the country, and has an appointment with a nonprofit for legal help scheduled for Monday. “What we most need is to work and to have a permit that will allow us to work in peace,” Guedez said in Spanish. “Once we do everything to be legalized, I know everything will go well.” l
Asylum-seeker Reibeth Sanchez attended a donation event organized by MetroPlus in Harlem’s Riverbank State Park, Sept. 28, 2022.Gabriel Poblete/THE CITY Venezuelan asylum-seeker Argelia Gimemez has been staying in a shelter on Central Pak West. Ben Fractenberg/THE CITY
While migrants often say their long journey to the United States has been worthwhile, adapting to the city is still an uphill battle.
This story was published on September 30, 2022 by THE CITY.
BY JANET HOWARD
Divorce has the potential for being a highly contentious legal process. With that said, there are many instances in which parties to divorce proceedings can reach an agreement between themselves regarding the matters at issue in the case. Several primary elements are found in a typical divorce property settlement agreement. These include: • Division of marital assets and debts • Disposition of marital residence • Child custody and parenting time • Child custody • Spousal maintenance or alimony
Division of Marital Assets and Debts A significant component of a divorce property settlement agreement is a division of marital assets and debts. Indeed, this element of an accord gives a divorce property settlement agreement its name. How an assignment of debts and distribution or assets or property occurs in a divorce is guided by applicable state law. There are two primary ways in which the laws of the different states in the country deal with property and liabilities in a divorce proceeding: • Equitable division of property standard • Community property standard
Most states in the country utilize the equitable division of property standard. Equitable property division requires that assets and debts of a marriage be divided between the parties in a just and fair considering the surrounding circumstances. On the other hand, the community property standard dictates that a marriage's assets and debts should be divided equally between the parties. If an equal division is not going to occur, a demonstration must be made about why that is not happening in a specific divorce case.
Disposition of Marital Residence When it comes to the matter of assets and debts, a specific focus typically is on the disposition of the marital residence, particularly if a divorcing couple has minor children. There may be a desire to maintain the marital residence to provide a consistent home for the children. The most common way the interest in a marital residence is divided between the parties is by selling the property. The sale proceeds are then divided between the parties to a divorce. Child Custody and Parenting Time Despite commonly being called a property settlement agreement, the instrument also addresses child custody and parenting time or visitation issues. In addition to issues surrounding assets and debts, matters pertaining to child custody and parenting time tend to be the most contentious in divorce proceedings. Public policy encourages parents to reach an agreement regarding child custody and parenting time during a divorce case. If that agreement is reached, it is incorporated into the overall settlement document. Even if the parties reach an agreement on child custody and parenting time, that concord needs to be approved by the court. A judge reviews an agreement regarding child custody and parenting time to ensure that it is in the child's best interests.
Child Support Each state has adopted what is known as child support guidelines. These guidelines provide parameters regarding a child support obligation upon divorce. continued on page 9
