Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Labor

Christmas Tree Growers Exempt from FLSA
Overtime Pay Provisions

Bhargavi Motukuri
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

Summary of Decision

In United States Dep't of Labor v. North Carolina Growers Ass'n, Inc., 377 F.3d 345 (4th Cir. 2004) the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that employees engaged in cultivation, growing and harvesting of Christmas trees were exempt from the overtime pay provisions set forth in Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219.

Background

Defendant North Carolina Growers Association Inc. was a trade association that helped Christmas tree growers to obtain seasonal farm labor. See id. at 347. In 1993, the defendant wanted to hire legal aliens to perform seasonal services on its Christmas tree farm. See id. It received permission to hire them as non-agricultural employees under the Immigration Reform Control Act (IRCA) and paid the workers overtime. See id. at 348-49. In 1995, the Department of Labor (DOL) informed the defendant that it considered seasonal employees to be agricultural employees for the purpose of IRCA. See id. at 349. Pursuant to the notice of DOL, the employees were paid the benefits designed for them by IRCA but were not paid overtime benefits as the growers deemed them to be agricultural employees exempt from overtime pay provisions under FLSA. See id.

DOL brought an action against the defendant alleging that it violated FLSA by refusing to pay the employees overtime wages as they were not employees engaged in agriculture for the purposes of FLSA but only for the purpose of IRCA. See id. The district court granted the summary judgment in favor of DOL and awarded the back pay of wages. See id. It also issued a permanent injunction against future FLSA violations. See id. The defendant appealed the district court's decision to the fourth circuit. See id.

Arguments

The defendant argued that its employees were engaged in agricultural activity and therefore were exempted from FLSA overtime pay provisions under § 213(b)(12). See id. The defendant also argued that the district court erred in finding that Christmas tree farming was not agriculture as that term is defined by § 203(f) of FLSA. See id. at 349-50.

Analysis and Holding

The court explained that FLSA was intended "to protect all covered commodities from substandard wages and oppressive working hours and the provisions of the Act should be liberally construed. Id. at 350. The court also explained that while interpreting the plain language of a statute, the "statute should be given its ordinary, contemporary, common meaning, absent an indication that the Congress intended to them to bear some different import." Id.

The court held that Christmas tree farming fits within the express statutory definition of "agriculture" as defined under 29 U.S.C.A § 203(f), which states that "agriculture includes farming in all its branches . . . performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations . . ., which creates both a primary and secondary definition of agriculture." Id. at 351.

The court held that Christmas tree farming is not one of "forestry or lumbering" operations that Congress intended to exclude from FLSA's primary definition of agriculture and importing the plain language of the statute cultivation, growing and harvesting of Christmas trees is "agriculture" as defined in FLSA. See id. at 354.

The case was decided on August 2, 2004; this summary was posted Mar. 21, 2005.