Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Labor
Agricultural Workers Stated Valid Claims for
AWPA and Labor Code Violations
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Robles v. Sunview Vineyards of California, Inc., No. CIV-F-06-0288 AWI SMS, 2009 WL 900731 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2009), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California held that the plaintiffs had properly stated claims under the Agricultural Workers Protection Act (AWPA) and the California Labor Code, and further held that the plaintiffs had a private right of action under Cal. Labor Code § 226.7.
Background and Arguments
Former employees of Sunview Vineyards (Sunview), a commercial table grape grower, brought this action against Sunview for violations of the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act (AWPA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872; breach of contract; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to reimburse work expenses; failure to provide required meal periods as required by the Industrial Welfare Commission Work Order 14 (IWC Order 14-2001) and Cal. Labor Code § 226.7; failure to provide required rest periods as required by IWC Order 14-2001 and Cal. Labor Code § 226.7; failure to keep accurate employee wage statements; failure to pay wages in a timely manner at the termination of employment; and violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. Id. at *1. Sunview moved to dismiss and urged the court to decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction to the plaintiffs' state law claims, or alternatively to dismiss the causes of action based on § 226.7. Id.
Analysis and Holdings
The court held that it had federal question jurisdiction over the plaintiffs'AWPA claims, and stated that it would assume supplemental jurisdiction over closely interrelated issues. Id. at *2. Considering the meal and rest period claims, the court examined Cal. Labor Code § 226.7, which provides,
(a) No employer shall require any employee to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. (b) If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period in accordance with an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.
Id. at *8.
Sunview's defense was that § 226.7's one-hour wage penalties did not apply to agricultural workers because IWC Order 14-2001 only requires an employer to "authorize and permit" rest and meal periods, not "provide" them. Id. However, the court determined that the IWC Order's "authorize and permit" language had the same meaning as "provide," and therefore the plaintiffs had properly stated their § 226.7 claim. Id. at *9. Lastly, the court held that the plaintiffs had the right to bring a private cause of action under § 226.7, and therefore denied Sunview's motion to dismiss. Id. at *10.
The case was decided on March 31, 2009.