I thought this was an interesting story:

In an action for both lost and future wages initiated by two workers injured at a Queens, N.Y., construction site, a Manhattan judge has ruled that the defense may not inquire as to the plaintiffs' legal authority to work in the United States. The case is Gomez v. F&T Int'l (Flushing, New York) LLC, 101817/05.

When a third-story floor gave way during a 2005 demolition project, Jose Gomez suffered multiple fractures to his vertebrae, resulting in paraplegia. His co-worker Amado Livicura fractured his wrist, requiring surgery.

The two men filed suit against Diamond Point Excavating Corp. and Prestige Carting Co., among others. The defendants subsequently moved to discover the plaintiffs' immigration and income-tax status, citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB, 535 US 137.

As Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Rolando T. Acosta put it in his searing decision, "Prestige, as is true with many companies in the construction industry, was apparently unconcerned with plaintiffs' alien status, complying with the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 [or] IRS regulations ... . Now that plaintiffs are injured and seeking lost wages, the owner and general contractor are suddenly concerned with plaintiffs' alien status and income tax returns."

The judge denied the motion, citing Balbuena v. IDR Realty, 6 NY3d 338, which found that federal law does not bar claims for lost wages absent "proof that plaintiffs tendered false work documents."

As for basing future wages on U.S. rates, Justice Acosta added, "[S]ince Gomez' injuries prevent him from working in the future, there is no need for him to establish that he obtained or was in the process of obtaining work authorization ... . If defendants can somehow demonstrate that the demolition industry has all of a sudden agreed to abide by IRCA such that Livicura could not obtain demolition work without proper authorization, the Court might reconsider its ruling. But, we all know better."