Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Labor

FLSA, Breach of Contract Claims for Failure to Meet
Conditions of Employment Contracts

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Hernandez v. Two Brothers Farm, LLC, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (S.D. Fla. 2008), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied a defendant-employer's motion for dismissal of a breach of contract claim brought against it by its foreign agricultural employees, finding that the court had supplemental jurisdiction to hear the claim and that the defendant entity's vice president-director and sole operator was also an "employer" under the terms of the plaintiffs' employment contracts.

Background

Plaintiffs, Mexican workers who were admitted into the United States to perform agricultural farm work pursuant to the H-2A visa program, brought this action against Two Brothers Farm and its director-vice president for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Id. at 1381. Under the H-2A visa program, employers must file a temporary labor certification application with the Department of Labor containing a job offer, or "clearance order," that must comply with federal regulations mandating minimum benefits, wages, and working conditions. Id.

Arguments

Plaintiffs argued that the defendants failed to pay them the wage guaranteed by the clearance order and the wage mandated by the FLSA, that they failed to compensate them for all the hours they worked, and that they did not provide the minimum number of guaranteed work hours set forth in the clearance order, which constituted a violation of the FLSA and breach of contract. Id.

Defendants moved for a more definite statement of the plaintiffs' claims, arguing that their complaint should set forth a separate count for each individual plaintiff's FLSA and breach of contract claims against each defendant. Id. Defendants alternatively moved for dismissal, arguing that the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was not part of the same case or controversy as their FLSA claim; therefore, the court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the claim. Id. at 1382. They also argued that the individual defendant, Two Brothers' vice president-director, was not an "employer" under the FLSA, so he was not a party to the employment contract with plaintiffs. Id. at 1383.

Analysis and Holdings

The court explained that a motion for a more definite statement may only be granted "if a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading." Id. at 1381. Finding that the plaintiffs had clearly set forth their claims, the court denied the defendant's motion for a more definite statement. Id. at 1382. The court further found that the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim involved the same facts, occurrences, witnesses, and evidence as their FLSA claim, so the court had supplemental jurisdiction to hear the claim. Id. Finally, the court concluded that the vice president-director and his company were joint "employers" because both had the power to pay, supervise, or otherwise control the plaintiffs' work. Id. at 1383.

The case was decided on September 29, 2008.