1. Did the Court agree with Jutla’s contention that the Supreme Court’s Hoffman Plastics decision precluded the plaintiff from bringing the FLSA anti-retaliation lawsuit against it?
2. How does the FLSA coverage of undocumented workers fit with the policies behind the IRCA?
3. Explain the court’s ruling in this case.

[Macan Singh was recruited by the defendant Jutla to come work for him in the United States. Jutla promised that he would have him a place to live and tuition for education and that he would eventually become Jutla's business partner in his corporation, C.D. & R's Oil, Inc. Singh worked for Jutla in the United States illegally from approximately May 1995 to February 1998 and received no pay. On January 6, 1999, Singh filed a wage claim against the defendant. He sought unpaid wages and overtime pay for work actually performed. Thereafter, Jutla threatened to report him to the INS, but Singh refused to submit to Jutla. The Labor Commissioner awarded Singh $69,633.73 and Jutla appealed. Ultimately, on May 3, 2001, Jutla agreed to make the payments to Singh. The following day, May 4, 2001, the INS arrested and detained Singh, and he remained in INS custody for 14 months. He alleged that defendant Jutla contacted the INS and provided them with information on his status in an act of retaliation. On March 7, 2002, Singh filed a complaint with the district court against defendant for retaliation under the FLSA, requesting declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Jutla filed a motion to dismiss, claiming under the Supreme Court's Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB decision that plaintiff had no cause of action.]
BREYER, D. J.…
The FLSA's anti-retaliation provision
The FLSA's anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(3), provides that it shall be unlawful for "any person" to "discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act …"
… The most common retaliatory act is discharge, however certain post-employment misconduct has also been found to violate section 215(a)(3). Postemployment misconduct that has been found to violate the anti-retaliation provision includes: informing a prospective employer that an employee had filed a complaint with the Department of Labor ("DOL"), Dunlop v. Carriage Carpet Co., 548 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1977); interfering with a former employee's subsequent employment opportunities by speaking to the landlord of the new employer, Bonham v. Copper Cellar Corp., 476 F.Supp. 98 (E.D. Tenn. 1979)….
Defendant in this case was not just a knowing employer, but allegedly, actively recruited plaintiff to come to work in the United States. Defendants continued to employ him for approximately three years, throughout which they were aware of his illegal status.
Plaintiff is not seeking back pay

Hoffman [Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 122 S.Ct. 1275 (2002)] eliminated back pay as a remedy available to undocumented workers, thus the decision precludes illegal aliens from a very specific remedy. "Hoffman does not establish that an award of unpaid wages to undocumented workers for work actually performed runs counter to IRCA." Flores v. Albertsons, Inc., 2002 WL 1163623 (C.D.Cal.2002).

Including undocumented workers in the FLSA's coverage is consistent with immigration policy.
Allowing an undocumented worker to bring an antiretaliation claim under the FLSA is consistent with the immigration policies underlying the IRCA. Congress enacted the FLSA to eliminate substandard working conditions by requiring employers to pay their employees a statutorily prescribed minimum wage and prohibiting employers from requiring their employees to work more than forty hours per week unless the employees are compensated at one and one half times their regular hourly rate. See 29 U.S.C. § 202, § 206, and § 207(a)(1). Congress enacted the IRCA to reduce the illegal immigration not only to eliminate the economic incentive for illegal workers to come to this country, but also to eliminate employers' incentive to hire undocumented workers by imposing sanctions on employers who hire such workers. See U.S.C. § 1324a. Though the FLSA does not impose sanctions, it also discourages employers from hiring such workers because it eliminates employers' ability to pay them less than minimum wage or otherwise take advantage of their status. As the Patel [v. Quality Inn South, 846 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1988)] court noted, "[i]f the FLSA did not cover undocumented aliens, employers would have an incentive to hire them. Employers might find it economically advantageous to hire and underpay undocumented workers and run the risk of sanctions under the IRCA." 846 F.2d at 704. If the employers know they have to pay illegal aliens the same wage as legal workers, they are far less likely to hire an illegal worker and run the risk of subjecting themselves to sanctions under the IRCA. As a result, there are fewer employment opportunities and therefore fewer incentives to enter this country illegally.

Admittedly, similar arguments could be used to support the award of back pay, which was rejected in Hoffman. Indeed, every remedy extended to undocumented workers under the federal labor laws provides a marginal incentive for those workers to come to the United States. It is just as true, however, that every remedy denied to undocumented workers provides a marginal incentive for employers to hire those workers. The economic incentives are in tension. Given this tension, the courts must attempt to sensibly balance competing considerations. In this case, the balance tips sharply in favor of permitting this cause of action, and the remedies it seeks, to go forward. Prohibiting plaintiff from bringing this claim under the FLSA would provide a perverse economic incentive to employers to seek out and knowingly hire illegal workers, as defendant did here, in direct contravention of immigration laws. Though employers that succumbed to these incentives would run the risk of sanctions under the IRCA, that risk may be worth taking. National labor and immigration policy is most appropriately balanced by permitting this case to go forward.
Conclusion
Because this Court finds that plaintiff's action under the FLSA is not barred for the aforementioned reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED.