New York State In-depth

The Supreme Court pushed to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition on involuntary servitude

In a rare court case, a group of Filipino nurses are asking the US Supreme Court to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment, known to have abolished slavery and forced labor. Simply because they gave up the abusive working conditions and sought legal counsel, the nurses were charged and threatened with prison terms by prosecutors in Suffolk County, New York. A state court later ruled that the prosecution violated nurses’ rights under the Thirteenth Amendment.

But despite that decision, a federal appeals court last year dismissed a civil rights lawsuit filed by the nurses, granting prosecutors absolute immunity for their actions. Thanks to a 1976 decision by the US Supreme Court, prosecutors are completely shielded from civil rights lawsuits.

This protection, known as prosecutorial immunity, is even broader than the “qualified immunity” that became infamous after the murder of George Floyd. Unlike qualified immunity, which protects all government employees from liability unless they have violated a “clearly established” right, prosecutor’s immunity is nearly absolute. The only exception is when a prosecutor is clearly acting outside of his or her powers.

The nurses’ petition, represented by the Institute for Justice, points out that their case is a “paradigmatic example” of the types of abuses Congress sought to end after the Civil War. Among the many measures taken to better protect the rights of black Americans newly emancipated by the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

Stimulated by the vicious attacks of the Ku Klux Klan (often aided and abetted by local law enforcement), this sweeping federal law, now codified as Section 1983, was designed to allow individuals to sue state and local officials who violate their constitutional violated rights.

But legal shields such as prosecutorial and qualified immunity clearly undermine the intent behind Section 1983. This is particularly urgent since civil trial is often the only way a victim can even attempt to bring a rogue prosecutor to justice.

A group of Filipino nurses and their attorney are urging the US Supreme Court to abolish it … [+] Criminal Immunity.

Institute of Justice

Filipinos working abroad are the lifeblood of the Philippines, sending $38 billion to friends and family back home last year. According to the World Bank, one-tenth of the country’s economy comes from remittances, while about 40% of those remittances come from the United States alone. And healthcare is one of the most popular fields for expat Filipinos. Approximately one in four Filipino adults working in the United States works on frontline healthcare.

But this desire for more options was all too easily exploited by politically-affiliated companies. Sentosa Care, one of the largest nursing home chains in New York, regularly recruited nurses from the Philippines to work at their facilities.

But when the nurses arrived in New York, they were scammed. Compared to what their contracts promised, nurses received less pay and time off, unpredictable shifts in miserable facilities, and were housed in cramped and rundown apartments. Worst of all, anyone who wanted to quit before their three-year contract was up would risk a $25,000 fine. For comparison, at that time the per capita GDP in the Philippines was just over US$1,450.

To escape their unexpected involuntary bondage, 10 nurses sought help from the Philippine Consulate, which referred them to Felix Vinluan, an immigration and labor law attorney. After checking with the nurses, Vinluan informed them that Sentosa had broken their contracts. Accordingly, he told the nurses that they could leave and seek employment elsewhere as long as they quit after the shift ended. Because their working conditions were unbearable, these 10 nurses resigned in April 2006.

Sentosa went on the warpath. In a series of transparent intimidation tactics to punish nurses for quitting, Sentosa filed complaints with the state nurse licensing board and the Suffolk County Police Department. The company also filed a civil lawsuit to prevent Vinluan from speaking to other Sentosa employees.

Although the layoffs didn’t harm any patients and shifts were covered, Sentosa still claimed that by quitting their jobs, the nurses “abandoned their patients” and should be punished.

Initially, these efforts were rejected. The police declined to investigate. Regulators concluded that the nurses “had committed no professional misconduct” and noted that “no patient was deprived of care.” And a court dismissed the civil suit against Vinluan.

But Sentosa was undeterred. Using his political connections, Sentosa landed a meeting with Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota and urged prosecutors to press criminal charges. In 2007, nearly a year after the nurses quit, Suffolk County indicted the 10 nurses who quit on multiple criminal charges and conspiracy.

Prosecutors even charged Vinluan with criminal incitement and conspiracy for advising the nurses and filing a discrimination lawsuit with the US Department of Justice on their behalf.

The allegations were obviously unfounded. But for the next two years, the nurses and Vinluan lived in fear of being convicted, jailed and having their licenses revoked, ruining their livelihoods.

Fortunately, in 2009, a state appeals court issued a rare “barring order” that prevented the prosecution from proceeding. The nurses and their attorney, the court unanimously declared, “were threatened with criminal prosecution for crimes for which they cannot be constitutionally charged.” The prosecution of nurses for termination of employment, the court ruled, was “the opposite of the free and voluntary system of labor envisaged by the Thirteenth Amendment drafters.”

As for Vinluan, the case against him was based on “the exercise of commonly protected First Amendment rights” and would “eliminate the right to give and receive counsel.” Rather than harming the health of patients, “the biggest risk posed by the termination of these nurses affected Sentosa’s financial health.”

Strengthened by this ruling, the nurses and Vinluan filed a civil rights complaint in federal court to hold Suffolk County prosecutors accountable. Citing Supreme Court precedent on prosecutorial immunity, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed his case last year.

Although prosecutors “have unlawfully punished the plaintiffs for exercising the right to resign from their posts on the advice of a lawyer,” the court said, they are “entitled to absolute immunity for their actions during the judicial phase of the criminal proceedings.”

Until the Supreme Court accepts the nurses’ case, there will be no recourse for victims of forced labor.

Comments are closed.