Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Labor
Summary Judgment Granted for Violations of AWPA and FLSA
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Ortiz v. Paramo, No. 06-3062, 2008 WL 4378373 (D.N.J. Sept. 19, 2008), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted plaintiff farm laborers motion for summary judgment on several of their Agricultural Worker Protection Act claims and their Fair Labor Standards Act claim regarding the defendant employers' business and operating procedures.
Background
Plaintiffs, farm laborers who resided at the defendant Paramo's labor camp while working at a farm owned by defendant Catalano, brought an action against the defendants claiming violations of the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872, the federal Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL), N.J.Stat. Ann. § 34:11-56.4(a). Id. at *1.
Arguments
Plaintiffs argued that the defendants violated the FLSA and the NJWHL by deducting the cost of meals, cigarettes, and alcohol from their wages. Id. at *4. They also argued that the defendants violated several AWPA provisions: the written disclosure requirements § 1821(a), the itemized pay records requirement of § 1821(d), the § 1822(a) requirement that wages be paid to agricultural workers when they are due, the § 1842 requirement that agricultural employers must use reasonable steps to determine that a farm labor contractor possesses a valid certificate of registration, § 1811(a) and (b) requirements that farm labor contractors must have a certificate of registration from the Secretary of Labor, and § 1821(c) and (e) requirements regarding posted notice of housing requirements by housing providers and maintenance of pay records by farm labor contractors. Id. at *6.
Analysis and Holdings
FLSA Claim
The court first concluded that the defendants were joint employers because the plaintiffs were dependent on both of them for continued employment. Id. at *5. Under the FLSA, deductions from an employee's wages may not reduce the amount of the wages below the minimum wage, but deductions are allowed for the reasonable cost of meals and other services. Id. at *6. The employer bears the burden of showing the costs are reasonable, and must also maintain records of the deductions. See id. Because it was undisputed that records were not kept regarding the meal charges, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on their FLSA claim. Id.
AWPA Claims
Section 1821(a) imposes a written disclosure requirement on recruiters covering information such as the place of employment, wage rates, the crops and types of activities involved, the period of employment, and the transportation and housing benefits and related costs. Id. However, neither party had produced evidence of any such disclosure given or a lack thereof, so the court denied both parties' summary judgment requests on this issue. Id. at *7.
Section 1821(d) requires farm labor contractors and agricultural employers to keep itemized pay records for each worker for three years and to provide an itemized pay stub to each employee each pay period. Id. at *6. There was evidence that the defendants had some records, but no evidence that they had retained the records for the required period, so the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on this issue. Id. at *7. Because such records apparently did not exist, it followed that the contractor could not have provided them to the agricultural employer as required by § 1821(e), so the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on that claim as well. Id. at *8.
Section 1822(a) requires wages to be paid to agricultural workers when they are due. Id. at *6. Having already determined that the meal deductions were improper, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs on this issue. Id. at *8.
Section 1821(c) requires posted notice of housing requirements by housing providers. Id. The court found in favor of plaintiffs on this issue because there was no evidence that the labor camp's worker requirements had been posted. Id.
Under § 1842 and § 1811, Paramo was required to be registered as a farm labor contractor and Catalano was required to ensure her registration before contracting with her. Id. There were disputed issues of fact regarding whether they had done so; therefore, the court denied summary judgment on those issues. Id.
Lastly, the court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on their § 1811(b) claim because it was undisputed that the individuals used by Paramo to recruit workers in Puerto Rico and to drive the workers from the camp to the farm were not registered. Id. at *9.
NJWHL Claim
The court stated that because it used the same analysis for both the FLSA and NJWHL claims, that summary judgment was appropriate for the NJWHL claim. Id. at *4, *9.
The case was decided on January 14, 2005.