Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Labor

Plaintiffs Satisfy AWPA "Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker" Requirements

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Alvarado v. Nederend, No. 1:08-CV-01099-OWW-SMS, 2009 WL 506484 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2009), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California held that agricultural employees had sufficiently alleged their Agricultural Worker Protection Act claim, but granted the defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend solely to allow for clarification of contested factual issues.

Background

Plaintiff dairy farmer employees filed this class action suit against their former employer for violations of the federal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and the California Labor Code, and the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6) and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1). Id. at *1.

Arguments

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' employment was not seasonal or temporary and that the plaintiffs inadequately alleged that they were absent from their permanent place of residence while employed; therefore, they were not migrant or seasonal agricultural workers under the AWPA. Id. at *3-4.

The plaintiffs argued that their labor was "seasonal" in nature because milk production "slacks during summer months." Id. at *3.

Analysis and Holdings

To be considered a migrant agricultural worker protected by the AWPA: "(1) the employment must be agricultural in nature; (2) the employment must be of a seasonal or temporary nature; and (3) the employment [must] require[] overnight absence from the worker's permanent place of residence." Id. at *2. The first requirement, that the plaintiffs were agricultural employees, was undisputed. Id. at *3. The court ruled that the plaintiffs had satisfied the seasonal requirement by alleging that that milk production "slacks during summer months." Id. at *4. The court further found that the plaintiffs' allegations that they "live[d] on the worksite in substandard temporary worker barracks" satisfied the "overnight absence" requirement, and therefore it held that the plaintiffs had properly stated their AWPA claim. Id. at *4. The court concluded that although the defendant's arguments did not warrant dismissal, they did "raise significant questions best adjudicated on summary judgment," and the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend to permit clarification of those issues. Id. at *4-5.

The case was decided on February 27, 2009.