Flores v. George Braun Packing Co.

Fifth Circuit

Flores v. George Braun Packing Co.

482 F.2d 279

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided July 17, 1973·No. No. 73-1489·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs, slaughterhouse workers who are on strike against their employers, contend that the Immigration and Nationality Act, i. e., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a) (15) (a) (ii), 1182(a) (14), and 1324, and the regulations implementing those provisions, 29 C.F.R. § 60.1, et seq., create a private right of action against their employers, based on the alleged employment of Mexican nationals who illegally entered the United States. We follow the holding of the Tenth Circuit in Chavez v. Freshpict Foods, Inc., 456 F.2d 890 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1112, 93 S.Ct. 925, 34 L.Ed.2d 695 (1973), which determined that no such private remedy exists.

The order of the district court dismissing the complaint is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs, slaughterhouse workers who are on strike against their employers, contend that the Immigration and Nationality Act, i. e., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a) (15) (a) (ii), 1182(a) (14), and 1324, and the regulations implementing those provisions, 29 C.F.R. § 60.1, et seq., create a private right of action against their employers, based on the alleged employment of Mexican nationals who illegally entered the United States. We follow the holding of the Tenth Circuit in Chavez v. Freshpict Foods, Inc., 456 F.2d 890 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1112, 93 S.Ct. 925, 34 L.Ed.2d 695 (1973), which determined that no such private remedy exists.

The order of the district court dismissing the complaint is

Affirmed.

Flores v. George Braun Packing Co., 482 F.2d 279 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

482 F.2d 279 (Flores v. George Braun Packing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related