Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Ag Labor

Responsibilities of Migrant Worker Employers Who
Control or Provide Housing Facilities

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Renteria-Marin v. Ag-Mart Produce, Inc., 537 F.3d 1321, 2008 WL 3166384 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2008), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer of migrant workers was liable for violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act because it had provided housing for its workers without complying with certain notice requirements, but held that it was not liable for violating another provision of the Act because it did not "own or control" the housing facilities.

Background

Ag-Mart Produce contracted with three motels to house its migrant workers, and charged its crew leaders with reserving the number of rooms needed, assigning people rooms and room keys, and collecting weekly rent payments from the workers. Id. Each room was to have no more than four people, and if the full amount of rent money for the rooms was not paid by the workers, the crew leader was personally responsible for the loss. Id. To avoid that situation, some crew leaders started assigning more than four people per room, forcing some workers to sleep on the floor. Id. Also, the motels did not have sufficient laundry facilities and had no cooking facilities, forcing workers to pay around $18 per day for meals from mobile food wagons. Id. at *2. The crew leaders helped the motels enforce their rules and policies by monitoring the workers' behavior and enforcing curfew. Id. Ag-Mart did not provide a written statement of the terms and conditions of occupancy of the motels to its employees. Id. The workers brought a class action suit against Ag-Mart, alleging violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA). Id. at *1. The district court determined that Ag-Mart controlled and provided the housing to the workers, and was therefore liable for failing to comply with AWPA's housing provisions, and Ag-Mart appealed. Id.

Arguments

The migrant workers argued that because Ag-Mart controlled the workers' housing, Ag-Mart was required to ensure that the housing met AWPA standards and was certified compliant, and also that because Ag-Mart provided housing to the workers, Ag-Mart was liable for failing to provide statutorily required notices to them. Id.

Ag-Mart argued that the workers were notified of the weekly charge to reside in the motels and that they were "aware" of the additional information required to be provided by 29 U.S.C. § 1821(c).

Analysis and Holdings

The AWPA requires the person who owns or controls a facility that is used as housing for migrant farm workers, to ensure that the facility complies with federal and state health and safety standards and to post the certification of compliance at the site. Id. at *3 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1823(a)(b)(1)). Another provision of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(c), requires that each farm labor contractor, agricultural employer or agricultural association that provides housing to migrant farm workers must post or present to such worker a statement of the terms and conditions of the occupancy. Id. The appellate court agreed with the district court's finding that an agency relationship existed between Ag-Mart and its crew leaders, but found that the plain language of § 1823 referred the person who controlled the facility, rather than its occupants, and therefore reversed the district court's ruling and held that Ag-Mart could not be liable for violations of that section since it did not "control" the facilities. Id. at *4. However, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling regarding § 1821 and found that Ag-Mart had provided housing to the migrant workers, and could therefore be liable for violations of that section. Id. at *6. The court concluded by stating that it was immaterial whether the workers were "aware" of the conditions as Ag-Mart claimed, because the regulations clearly required that the information be included in a written statement, which Ag-Mart failed to provide. Id.

The case was decided on August 8, 2008.