Law on Rice

For some reason, I find myself interested in a case recently accepted for review by the Washington Supreme Court, Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors (No. 81590-9). Mr. Salas was an undocumented worker that fell three stories from a ladder set up by Hi-Tech Erectors. At trial, he wanted to keep his undocumented status out of the case. But, according to Division One:

The [trial] court stated that if Salas made a claim for impairment of future income, his status as a non-legal resident would be probative as to the extent of the future impairment. The court ruled that it would leave the decision whether or not to introduce evidence of Salas’s immigration status to Salas himself, saying, “you can’t have it both ways. It either stays out and there’s no future income claim or it comes in and you may make it.” “These are volatile times in terms of immigration, no doubt,” the court noted. “It may be a difficult decision for him to decide which way to go.”

143 Wash.App. 373. Judge Baker affirmed the trial court’s conclusion.

My naive reading of this says that, if Mr. Salas disclosed that he was undocumented, then he couldn’t recover any lost wages. But if he introduced it, then it might create problems with the jury. Even though his undocumented status may be prejudicial, there are quite a Washington cases that say that the evidence can be introduced. Thus, Judge Baker affirmed the trial court’s reasoning.

I’m quite uncomfortable with that, but let’s see what the Washington Supreme Court says.