## Facts

- John G. Gates, a Canadian citizen, traveled to Fairbanks, Alaska, in early 1969 at the expense of Rivers Construction Co., Inc. and General Construction Co., Inc.
- Gates agreed to perform public-relations work in Alaska to help the companies obtain construction contracts, for a monthly salary of about $1,400 to $1,600 beginning immediately.
- Believing Gates could not lawfully work for salary in Alaska until he obtained permanent resident status, the parties agreed the salary would be placed in trust at an Alaska bank and paid only when Gates became a permanent resident.
- Gates worked for the companies until his employment was terminated on December 4, 1970.
- Gates became a permanent resident on December 11, 1970.
- In February 1971, Gates sued for unpaid salary allegedly to have been held in trust; the companies admitted he performed services but denied liability.
- The companies relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14), a labor-certification-based exclusion provision for certain aliens seeking entry to perform labor.

## Issues

1. Whether an employment arrangement allegedly inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14) is so illegal that it bars an alien from recovering unpaid wages for services actually performed.
2. Whether refusing a civil wage remedy would further the statutory policy of § 1182(a)(14) or instead impose an extra sanction not contemplated by Congress.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the dismissal entered after Gates’s case-in-chief.
- The court held Gates was not barred from seeking compensation solely because the arrangement was asserted to violate federal immigration law.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on Gates’s claim.

## Legal Principles

- Illegality is not automatic: a court must evaluate the policy and purpose of the relevant statute to decide whether denying enforcement of an agreement is an appropriate means of advancing that policy.
- When a regulatory statute is silent on civil forfeiture, courts should be reluctant to infer a remedy that deprives a worker of earned compensation.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14) primarily governs visa eligibility and exclusion; absent clear congressional direction, it does not require courts to void wage obligations or deny wage recovery.
- Denial of wages for performed services can improperly reward the employer and function as an additional penalty not specified by the statute, particularly where withholding payment does not materially serve the statute’s objectives.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the alien worker’s unpaid-wage claim to proceed, concluding that the asserted immigration-law conflict did not justify a judicially created forfeiture of earned compensation where the governing federal provision did not expressly mandate that result.


Gates v. Rivers Constr. Co., 515 P.2d 1020 (Alaska 1973)