## Facts

- Vicente Salas worked seasonally on a production line for Sierra Chemical Company.
- When hired, Salas presented work-authorization information that included a Social Security number belonging to another person.
- In 2006, Salas suffered a work-related back injury, filed a workers’ compensation claim, and was placed on modified duty.
- Salas alleged Sierra failed to reasonably accommodate his disability and later refused to rehire him for subsequent seasons in retaliation for filing the workers’ compensation claim, asserting claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
- After the FEHA suit was filed, Sierra discovered information suggesting Salas was not authorized to work in the United States and had used another person’s Social Security number to gain employment.
- Sierra sought to defeat the action and/or bar wage remedies by invoking after-acquired evidence and unclean hands, and argued state protections for unauthorized workers were limited by federal immigration law.
- The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment for Sierra after writ proceedings; the Court of Appeal affirmed on after-acquired evidence and unclean hands grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether federal immigration law (including IRCA) preempts California’s statutory extension of state employment protections and remedies to workers regardless of immigration status, and if so, to what extent.
2. Whether after-acquired evidence and unclean hands operate as complete defenses to FEHA discrimination/retaliation claims by an unauthorized worker, or instead only restrict available remedies.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded.
- The court held California’s extension of workplace protections to workers regardless of immigration status is not preempted, except that federal law bars lost pay damages for periods after the employer discovers the worker’s ineligibility to work.
- The court held after-acquired evidence and unclean hands are not complete defenses to FEHA liability, but may limit remedies, including curtailing backpay and foreclosing remedies prohibited by federal law.

## Legal Principles

- FEHA protections and causes of action apply to individuals regardless of immigration status under California law, subject to federal limits on certain remedies.
- Federal immigration law preempts state-law awards of lost pay for any period after the employer’s discovery that the employee is not authorized to work, because such relief conflicts with IRCA’s objectives.
- After-acquired evidence does not eliminate FEHA liability; it may reduce remedies by cutting off backpay as of the date the employer proves it would have lawfully terminated or refused to rehire upon discovery of the disqualifying misconduct.
- Unclean hands generally does not bar FEHA statutory claims in toto when doing so would defeat strong public policies against workplace discrimination and retaliation; it may be considered in tailoring equitable and monetary relief.
- Remedies must be structured to avoid requiring unlawful employment and to account for both federal immigration constraints and equitable considerations.

## Conclusion

The court held that unauthorized workers may pursue FEHA discrimination and retaliation claims, while limiting remedies to avoid conflict with federal immigration law; after-acquired evidence and unclean hands restrict damages and equitable relief but do not extinguish liability.


Salas v. Sierra Chem. Co., 59 Cal. 4th 407, 327 P.3d 797 (Cal. 2014)