In a recent case out of the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield, a personal injury plaintiff argued that the fact that he “is an undocumented immigrant, resident or worker, does not bar him from recovering lost earnings, whether past or future; nor is it relevant to establishing an appropriate amount of damages.” In ruling on a motion in limine on the issue, the Court found that:
the defendant may use the terms [“undocumented worker,” “undocumented alien,” and “illegal alien”] when referring to the plaintiff in the event the plaintiff pursues an award for back pay or future lost wages, [subject to certain limitations], and may use these terms to describe witnesses who testify in the plaintiff’s behalf regarding the subject of the plaintiff’s rate of wages, hourly work week and methods of the payment of any such wages[.] If such undocumented workers testify only to the facts surrounding the issue of liability and injuries, their undocumented status may not be the subject of any inquiry by the defendant. If the plaintiff determines he will not be seeking lost wages, both past and future, his undocumented status is not relevant and may not be the subject of inquiry by the defendant.
The Court in Guamamtario went on to hold that the defense would be not be barred from introducing any “evidence, argument, suggestion or inquiry regarding the plaintiff’s immigrant or residency status and that the plaintiff may be deported or may have a desire or intentions, if any to return to Equador. However, should the defendant present no evidence the plaintiff’s deportation is imminent or probable, or that the plaintiff intends to return to Equador, the defendant is barred from presenting argument, suggestion or inquiry regarding possible deportation or the possibility that the plaintiff could return to Equador.”