Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Aramark Facility Services v. Service Employees International Union

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
530 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2008)


Facts

Aramark Facility Services (Aramark) (defendant) provided labor for the Staples Center. In 2003, the Social Security Administration (SSA) sent Aramark no-match letters indicating that the social security numbers for 48 employees at the Staples Center did not match the numbers in the SSA’s database. The SSA routinely issued no-match letters to inform employees who would not be properly credited for their social-security earnings. The SSA also routinely issued no-match letters for a number of other reasons, including unauthorized employment of noncitizens, typographical errors, and inaccurate completion of employment records. Aramark suspected that the no-match letters were due to immigration violations by Aramark’s employees. Consequentially, Aramark required the named employees to provide proof within three days that the employees had begun the process of applying for a new social security card. About a week later, Aramark dismissed 33 employees who had failed to provide such proof. Local 1877 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) (plaintiff) filed a grievance on behalf of the 33 dismissed employees, arguing that the employees had been dismissed without cause in violation of the employees’ collective-bargaining agreement. An arbitrator held that the employees were entitled to back pay and reinstatement, because there was no convincing evidence that they were undocumented. The district court found that the employees’ failure to show that they were obtaining new social security cards gave Aramark constructive notice that the employees were unauthorized to work. Accordingly, the district court held that enforcement of the arbitration award would violate immigration law, and therefore, the award was void as against public policy. SEIU appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Hall, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 178,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.