Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Labor

Court Denies Motion for Injunctive Relief against Labor Regulations

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In United Farm Workers v. Chao, 593 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D.D.C. 2009), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that the plaintiffs' challenge to new Department of Labor regulations failed because the plaintiffs had failed to make a showing of imminent and irreparable harm.

Background

Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to postpone the effective date of a new Final Rule announced by the Department of Labor modifying regulations concerning domestic farm workers and H-2A "guestworker" visas. Id. at 167.

Arguments

Plaintiffs argued that the new regulations would result in irreparable harm to the industry in the form of economic loss. Id. at 170.

Defendants, the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security, argued that the plaintiffs' alleged injury was too "speculative and conjectural" to constitute imminent, irreparable harm. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court explained that it could only issue interim injunctive relief when the movant demonstrated "(1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest." Id. at 168. The plaintiffs claimed irreparable harm would result from the new regulations in the form of economic loss. Id. at 169. The court noted that "economic loss alone will rarely constitute irreparable harm," but in the business context, "if the potential harm could threaten the very existence of the business, a court may deem such harm irreparable." Id. The court further explained that the alleged irreparable injury "must be both certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical." Id. at 170. The plaintiffs' witnesses had testified that their wages might be cut, and that they would possibly or probably suffer as a result, but had not explained how such pay cuts would result in imminent injury. Id. The declarations submitted in support of their motions likewise used uncertain and indefinite language such as "we anticipate," "we believe," "it would appear," "employees could suffer a drastic and immediate reduction in wages," and "assuming many employers will choose to pay the [reduced] wage." Id. at 170-71. The court therefore held that the plaintiffs had not presented sufficient evidence to prove imminent and irreparable harm, and denied their motion for injunctive relief. Id. at 171.

The case was decided on January 15, 2009.