WASHINGTON (AP) -- As the fight over rewriting immigration law heats up, corporations are coming under fire for using recruiters to find and hire workers who are in the United States illegally.þþThe allegations against corporations will figure prominently in arguments before the Supreme Court when justices hear an appeal Wednesday by a Georgia floor-covering company accused by current and former employees of hiring hundreds of illegal immigrants to suppress wages.þþJustices are being asked to decide only a piece of the highly charged issue: whether corporations like Mohawk Industries Inc., a rug and floor-covering manufacturer, can be sued under civil provisions of a federal law originally designed to fight organized crime.þþThe key question is whether a corporation that contracts out a service, such as recruiting, can be part of an illegal ''enterprise'' under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970.þþIn 1996, Congress expanded the anti-racketeering law's reach to include violations of immigration law, such as the hiring of illegal workers.þþThe high court's decision could be significant because it likely would affect both criminal and civil uses of the anti-racketeering law, particularly by the Justice Department. Federal prosecutors have long used the law to seek prison terms for corrupt union officers and money damages from crooked unions and pension funds.þþThe Mohawk employees' lawsuit has not gone to trial and is on hold while the company appeals a trial court judge's denial of the company's motion to dismiss the case. Mohawk denies knowing it had illegal workers on its payroll.þþThe Atlanta-based 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, finding that Mohawk and the recruiters constitute an enterprise under the law.þþIn court filings, Mohawk's lawyers argued the anti-racketeering law pertains to individuals -- such as gangsters or drug dealers who enter into agreements to commit crimes -- not corporations.þþCorporations are the primary victims of organized crime, the lawyers said. The anti-racketeering law ''was designed to clean up infiltrated corporations (and other organizations) through the prosecution of individual ... defendants,'' they wrote.þþBut the Bush administration disagreed, arguing that a ruling in favor of Mohawk would insulate the most sophisticated racketeering schemes used by combinations of corporations and other legal entities.þþIn friend-of-the-court filings, several proponents of immigration controls urged justices not to usurp Congress' intent in adding immigration violations to the anti-racketeering law.þþWhite-collar criminals should not be given ''an undeserved free pass,'' wrote lawyers for the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys, a nonprofit group whose members represent victims of corporate fraud.þþMohawk, however, insists it was conducting its own affairs through the recruiter, not those of a separate enterprise.þþThe company's supporters said in court filings that a ruling against Mohawk would be unfair to corporations and discourage them from contracting out and saving money.þþBecause of significant shortages in skilled labor in recent years, manufacturers have been forced to rely on recruiting firms to meet demands for workers, wrote lawyers for the National Association of Manufacturers and other groups.þþThe case is Mohawk Industries v. Williams, 05-465.þþ
Source: NY Times
