Martinez v. Reich

2 Citing cases

  1. COMITÉ DE APOYO A LOS TRABAJADORES AGRÍCOLAS v. SOLIS

    CIVIL ACTION No. 09-240 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2010)   Cited 8 times

    See 8 U.S.C. § 1188. Given Congress's divergent approaches to H-2A and H-2B workers, DOL's similar difference in treatment is not, as a general matter, arbitrary and capricious. Accord Martinez v. Reich, 934 F. Supp. 232, 237-28 (S.D. Tex. 1996). Plaintiffs also rely on the regulations governing the permanent labor certification program, which were, plaintiffs aver, highly detailed in many previous incarnations.

  2. U.S. v. Richard Dattner Architects

    972 F. Supp. 738 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1324c, which makes it unlawful for a person knowingly to falsify documents to satisfy the requirements of or to obtain a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act, does not create a private right of action

    Other cases also have found that domestic workers are within the zone of interests of the INA when they claim that actions by the Secretary of Labor violated the INA. See Martinez v. Reich, 934 F. Supp. 232, 235-36 (S.D.Tex. 1996); Comite De Apoyo Para Los Trabajadores Agricolas (CATA) v. Dole, 731 F. Supp. 541, 544 (D.D.C. 1990). Contrary to the Garrison Court's reading of these cases, they do not suggest that a domestic worker has an implied right of action under the INA against an employer.