Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc.

A group of people (the employees) (plaintiffs) immigrated to the United States and began working for NIBCO, Inc. (defendant). The employees had limited English proficiency. Although their jobs did not require English proficiency, NIBCO required them to take an examination given only in English. They did poorly. The employees were eventually terminated and sued NIBCO, claiming that the examination and subsequent terminations had caused a disparate impact based on national origin in violation of state and federal law. During discovery of the lawsuit, NIBCO’s attorney sought to ask questions related to the employees’ immigration status. The employees sought a protective order against such questions. They argued that because their employment status had been verified and their immigration status was not relevant to their claims, additional questioning would have a chilling effect on their ability to enforce their rights under employment laws. The magistrate judge granted an order, which, among other things, prohibited NIBCO from asking questions about the employees’ immigration status. The magistrate reasoned that allowing such information to be elicited through the discovery process could chill legitimate employment-law claims by undocumented workers. The district court agreed. NIBCO then sought an interlocutory appeal, which was granted.