ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

RSS feed

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Seminars

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Classifieds

Advertise

VIP Lawyer Network

EB-5

High Net Worth

Dubai Events

Campus Events

Overseas Events

RCs/Projects

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Careers

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily

 

ilw.com VIP


The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free
information!

Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:



< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

DerKevorkian v. Lionbridge Techs, Inc.

by John Rotterman, Esq.

I. Abandon a PERM case? That's Could Cost Ya.

Can an employee force an employer to pursue permanent residency on their behalf? Surprisingly, the answer is yes. Or more accurately, according to a recent federal court decision, an employee can successfully sue an employer that mishandles and subsequently abandons an employment based green card case. In February of this year, a jury awarded a $1.3 million verdict to a French national in just such a situation.

On January 26, 2006 the United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued a decision in the case of DerKevorkian v. Lionbridge Technologies. [1] A foreign national (DerKevorkian) sued her former employer (Lionbrdge) when Lionbridge refused to go forward with a green card process that had been initiated on her behalf.

II. Background

While DerKevorkian, a French national, was working as an intern, Lionbridge agreed to sponsor her for permanent residence through the labor certification process. DerKevorkian entered into Lionbridge's Permanent Resident Program. DerKevorkian was initially working as a translator. She was later promoted to the position of "Translation Manager." After the filing of the initial prevailing wage determination, it was discovered that DerKevorkian's work visa had not been amended to reflect her promotion. When the prevailing wage documentation was updated to reflect her new title and responsibilities, the position became a "Level Two, General Operations Manager," which resulted in a wage of $106,288. At that time, DerKevorkian's annual salary was $57,000. Lionbridge informed DerKevorkian that it was unwilling to meet the new wage obligation and suggested that DerKevorkian take a demotion, without a decrease in pay, to her former position as a Translator. DerKevorkian refused on the grounds that a demotion would adversely affect her career. Subsequent negotiations failed to yield a result satisfactory to both parties and Lionbridge did not move forward with the labor certification process. At the end of her visa term DerKevorkian left the United States and subsequently brought suit against Lionbridge.

III. Breach of Contract

DerKevorkian alleged that a contract was created between herself and Lionbridge in which the latter agreed to "assist and support," DerKevorkian through the green card process. According to DerKevorkian's argument, when Lionbridge refused to meet the new wage obligation and go forward with the green card process they breached that contract. Importantly, DerKevorkian did not claim that her employment contract covered the green card process. Rather, she argued that when Lionbridge agreed to sponsor her green card a contract separate and apart from her employment contract was created. She argued that because Lionbridge did not take actions such as challenging the prevailing wage that was issued or commission a private wage survey, they had failed to "[take] all reasonable and appropriate actions to enable [DerKevorkian] to apply for the green card," and breached the contract associated with the Green Card process.

Lionbridge, for its part, argued that since DerKevorkian was admittedly in an at-will employment arrangement where Lionbridge could have ended her employment at any time, its decision to discontinue its support of her green card fell within the confines of that employment arrangement.

The judge did not buy Lionbridge's argument and concluded that when DerKevorkian entered into Lionbridge's Permanent Resident Program, a contractual agreement to support the green card process that was created.

IV. Promissory Estoppel

Promissory estoppel is an old concept in the law that governs contractual obligations. A claim under promissory estoppel arises when an employer makes a promise, on which it should reasonably expect the employee to rely, and the employee in fact relies on the promise; and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. [2]

In this case, DerKevorkian argued that Lionbridge promised its full sponsorship of the green card process under its Permanent Resident Program. DerKevorkian further argued Lionbridge reasonably should have expected her to rely on its support of the Permanent Resident Program from start to finish; that she did in fact rely promise of the Permanent Resident Program to her detriment. Presumably, if she had believed that Lionbridge was not going to see its obligations under the Permanent Resident Program to its conclusion, she could have sought out another US employer would have sponsored her for a green card. She did not, and when her non-immigrant visa lapsed, she was left with no way to remain in the U.S.

V. Breach of fiduciary duty

Using reasoning similar to that used in her other claims; DerKevorkian argued that Lionbridge violated its obligation to act in her best interest, or fiduciary duty. She argued that Lionbridge took complete control of the green card process and then mishandled it such that the result was that she did not obtain her green card.

Here again, the judge sided with DerKevorkian concluding that a fiduciary duty was created when DerKevorkian's long term employer agreed to sponsor her for the green card process and then violated that duty when it was mismanaged and subsequently abandoned.

VI. Conclusion

This case emphasizes how important it is for employers to craft their green card sponsorship agreements is such a way as to clearly define what if any additional contractual obligations they intend to create.

It further underscores the necessity of crafting job descriptions that accurately reflect the requirements and responsibilities associated with a given position. While the case does not go into detail, it implies that had the job description been fine tuned so as to precisely describe DerKevorkian's job, the wage might have come back closer to what her actual salary was; which might have avoided the problems that led to the lawsuit.

The failure of Lionbridge to clearly define what additional contractual obligations it was taking on, coupled with its mismanagement of an employment based green card case cost it dearly. At trial, a jury awarded DerKevorkian $313,570 in economic damages $1 million in noneconomic damages. Upon review, the judge reduced the noneconomic award to $366,250 and reduced the economic damages award to $221,433. [3] Even with the reduction in place, Lionbridge was left with a judgment against it of $587,683.

For Isabelle Derkevorkian, Plaintiff, v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., Sharryn E. Ross, and Ross, Martel & Silverman, LLP, Defendants. Civil Case No. 04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS (January 26, 2006), see here.

For Isabelle Derkevorkian, Plaintiff, v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., Sharryn E. Ross, and Ross, Martel & Silverman, LLP, Defendants. Civil Case No. 04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS (April 3, 2006), see here.

For Isabelle Derkevorkian, Plaintiff, v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., defendant. Civil Case No. 04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS (February 27, 2007), see here.


Endnotes

1 DerKevorkian v. Lionbridge Technologies, No. 04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4191 (D. Colo. Jan. 26, 2006)

2 http://www.ohiobar.org/pub/lycu/index.asp?articleid=519

3 DerKevorkian v. Lionbridge Techs., Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13270 (D. Colo. 2007)


About The Author

John Rotterman, Esq. joined the Hammond Law Firm as an attorney in July of 2006. Prior to that, he worked as the firm's law clerk. John graduated from the Case Western Reserve School of Law in May of 2006. Before attending law school, John worked as a bi-lingual customer service agent, and earned his Bachelor's degree from Miami University in 2002. He also spent a semester of college studying in Chile.


The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.


Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: