CA Supreme Court upholds ruling protecting undocumented student employment – The UCSD Guardian

Judicial Ruling on University Employment Policy and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A recent California Supreme Court decision has upheld a lower court’s ruling that the University of California’s (UC) policy of not employing students without federal work authorization is discriminatory. This report analyzes the ruling and its significant alignment with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 4 (Quality Education).

Background of the Case: Muñoz v. The Regents of the University of California

The legal challenge was initiated by students Jeffry Umaña Muñoz and Iliana Perez, who contended that the University of California’s employment policy was in violation of state law.

• Core Argument: The lawsuit argued that the UC’s refusal to employ undocumented students directly contravenes California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
• Contested Policy: The University’s policy prohibits the employment of students who lack federal work authorization, a stance the plaintiffs identified as discriminatory.

Court Findings and Alignment with SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The California District 1 Appeals Court, in a ruling now affirmed by the state Supreme Court, found that the UC’s employment policy is discriminatory on its face. This judicial conclusion directly supports the objectives of SDG 10, which calls for the reduction of inequality within and among countries by ensuring equal opportunity and ending discriminatory practices.

1. Finding of Discrimination: The appellate court concluded on August 5 that the University’s policy “discriminates based on immigration status.”
2. Rejection of University’s Defense: The UC argued its policy was not discriminatory because it hires students with federal authorization under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. However, the court rejected the University’s use of “litigation risk” under the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act as a valid reason for the policy, calling it an “abuse of discretion.”
3. Advancing SDG 10: By challenging a policy that creates barriers for a specific demographic based on their status, the court’s decision promotes Target 10.3 of the SDGs: to ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome.

Implications for SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The case has profound implications for SDG 8, which aims to promote full and productive employment and decent work for all. The University’s policy effectively excludes a segment of the student population from the workforce, undermining the principles of inclusive economic growth.

• Barriers to Employment: The policy prevents qualified students from gaining valuable work experience and financial stability, which are key components of decent work.
• Legislative Context: A related legislative effort, Assembly Bill 2586, sought to mandate that California colleges employ undocumented students. Although it was passed by the Legislature in August 2024, it was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom, who cited concerns over potential legal liabilities for state employees. This highlights the ongoing tension between state-level inclusionary goals and perceived federal legal risks.

Impact on SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 16 (Strong Institutions)

The ruling also intersects with the goals of providing equitable education and building accountable institutions.

1. SDG 4 – Quality Education: On-campus employment is often a critical component of higher education, providing financial support that enables students to complete their studies. By restricting employment access, the policy creates a significant barrier to achieving equitable and quality education for all students, a cornerstone of SDG 4.
2. SDG 16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The court’s decision demonstrates the role of the judiciary as a strong and accountable institution (Target 16.6). By ordering the UC Regents to review and provide a proper legal basis for its policy, the court is upholding the rule of law and ensuring that a major public institution adheres to non-discriminatory principles.

Conclusion and Path Forward

The California Supreme Court’s decision not to review the appeal solidifies the appellate court’s ruling. While the University is not mandated to hire undocumented students, it is now required to reconsider its policy based on non-discriminatory criteria. The UC Office of the President has expressed concern that the ruling “creates serious legal risks.” This case marks a critical juncture in the effort to align institutional policies with the global objectives of reducing inequality, promoting decent work, and ensuring equitable access to education.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article’s central theme is the employment of undocumented students. It discusses the University of California’s policy that “prohibits it from employing students who do not have federal work authorization,” directly connecting to the goal of promoting inclusive and productive employment for all.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The core of the legal case, Muñoz v. The Regents of the University of California, is about discrimination. The court’s ruling found that the university’s employment policy “discriminates based on immigration status,” which directly relates to the goal of reducing inequalities and ensuring equal opportunity for all, irrespective of origin or other status.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article details a legal battle progressing through the California court system, from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. This highlights the role of judicial institutions in upholding laws like the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and ensuring access to justice for individuals challenging discriminatory policies. The focus is on the accountability of a public institution (the University of California) and the enforcement of non-discriminatory laws.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  While the article is not about access to enrollment, it addresses a critical component of the educational experience: the ability for students to work on campus. On-campus employment provides financial support, making education more affordable and accessible, and offers valuable work experience. Denying this opportunity based on immigration status creates a barrier to fully participating in and affording a quality tertiary education.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  • Target 8.5: “By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.” The article focuses on the employment rights of students (young people) and the barriers they face in securing on-campus jobs, which is a direct challenge to achieving full and productive employment for this group.
  • Target 8.8: “Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers…” The undocumented students are a category of migrant workers, and the court case is a fight to protect their labor rights against what is argued to be a discriminatory employment policy.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… origin… or other status.” The legal challenge aims to promote the economic inclusion of students regardless of their immigration status by allowing them access to employment.
  • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…” The article is entirely about a legal challenge to a university policy that the California Court of Appeals found “discriminates based on immigration status.” The court’s order for the UC Regents to “review its policy” is a direct action aimed at eliminating a potentially discriminatory practice.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law… and ensure equal access to justice for all.” The case brought by Jeffry Umaña Muñoz and Iliana Perez is a clear example of individuals using the legal system to seek justice and hold a powerful institution accountable.
  • Target 16.B: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.” The lawsuit argues that the university’s policy violates California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a non-discriminatory law. The court’s decision, which upholds the appellate ruling, is a step toward enforcing this law.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Existence and enforcement of non-discriminatory institutional policies

  The primary implied indicator is the status of the University of California’s employment policy. The article states the court “directed the University to reconsider its policy ‘based on proper criteria.'” Progress can be measured by whether the university amends or rescinds its policy that “prohibits it from employing students who do not have federal work authorization.”

• Proportion of a specific population group benefiting from a service/right

  An implied indicator is the number or proportion of undocumented students employed by the University of California. The article highlights that the university’s policy is a barrier to their employment. A change in this policy would lead to a measurable increase in the number of employed undocumented students, indicating progress towards equal opportunity (Target 10.3) and full employment (Target 8.5).

• Number of legal and legislative actions

  The article mentions specific legal and legislative events that can serve as indicators. These include the court case itself (Muñoz v. The Regents of the University of California), the California Supreme Court’s denial of the appeal, and the legislative attempt and subsequent veto of “Assembly Bill 2586.” Tracking such actions measures the ongoing effort to establish and enforce non-discriminatory policies (Target 16.B).

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: ucsdguardian.org