A Los Angeles jewelry manufacturer questioned an employee about her immigration status during a workers' compensation hearing this month and fired her after learning she was undocumented, according to a union representative at the hearing.

Felipe Aguirre, a local organizer for the International Union of Electricians-Communication Workers of America, said the employer, Quadrtech Manufacturing, also cited the Supreme Court's ruling when it canceled a proposed out-of-court settlement with employees who were fired during a union-organizing campaign.

A Quadrtech attorney did not return calls seeking comment.

It probably will be years before the ruling is fully interpreted by lower courts, attorneys said, although judges in state and federal court--both in California--already have taken a narrow view of the decision.

In Los Angeles, a U.S. District Court judge decided the immigrant status of supermarket janitors was not relevant in a class-action suit that seeks to collect minimum wages for years of work. And a San Diego Superior Court judge decided a taco stand worker who was paid $2 an hour for seven years was entitled to $32,000 for missing minimum wage. In both cases, employers had unsuccessfully cited the Supreme Court decision.

In the meantime, federal and state agencies are struggling to understand how the decision affects their ability to protect undocumented workers, if at all.

For years, state and federal agencies have wrestled with the sometimes conflicting goals of protecting workers while ensuring a legal work force. This is particularly tricky when an undocumented worker is fired illegally in retaliation for asserting rights on the job. Typically, employers in such cases are ordered to reinstate the worker and provide back pay for the time not worked. But if the employee is undocumented, an order of reinstatement essentially forces the employer to break the law.    [ Continue........ ]