Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Flores v. George Braun Packing Co.

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

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-07-17
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • no implied right against employer for deprivation of job based on illegal employment of foreign nationals under Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(A)(ii), 1182(a)(14)

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Flores v. George Braun Packing Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
13 opinions
FLORES v. GEORGE BRAUN PACKING COMPANY, ETC.,482 F.2d 279(5th Cir. 1973)
ABELARDO FLORES AND EDWARD M. DEVORA, ON THEIR OWN, AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS
OF PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED AND TOO NUMEROUS TO MENTION,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. GEORGE BRAUN PACKING COMPANY, DIVISION OF LEONARD
HARRAL PACKING COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 73-1489.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 17, 1973.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied November 8, 1973.
Page 280
Frank Herrera, Jr., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Marion R. McClanahan, L. W. Gibbs, San Antonio, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before WISDOM, AINSWORTH and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] 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), and1324, 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.

[2] The order of the district court dismissing the complaint is

[3] Affirmed.
  1. Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of N.Y.,431 F.2d 409, Part I (5th Cir. 1970). ↩