Farm Labor Org. Comm. v. Stein
| Decision Date | 28 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-1499, No. 21-1541 |
| Citation | 56 F.4th 339 |
| Parties | FARM LABOR ORGANIZING COMMITTEE; Valentin Alvarado Hernandez, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. Joshua STEIN, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, Defendant – Appellee, and Roy Cooper, in his official capacity as governor of the State of North Carolina; Marion R. Warren, in his official capacity as Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, Defendants, North Carolina Farm Bureau, Intervenor/Defendant. El Vinculo Hispano ; Farmworker Justice; National Employment Law Project; Episcopal Farmworker Ministry; North Carolina State AFL-CIO; North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP; Student Action With Farmworkers ; Western North Carolina Workers' Center, Amici Supporting Appellant. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. ; North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., Amici Supporting Appellee. Farm Labor Organizing Committee; Valentin Alvarado Hernandez, Plaintiffs – Appellees, v. Joshua Stein, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, Defendant – Appellant, and Roy Cooper, in his official capacity as governor of the State of North Carolina; Marion R. Warren, in his official capacity as Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, Defendants, North Carolina Farm Bureau, Intervenor/Defendant. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. ; North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., Amici Supporting Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
ARGUED: Kristi Lee Graunke, ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Matthew Thomas Tulchin, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ON BRIEF: Jaclyn Maffetore, ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION, Raleigh, North Carolina; Julia Solórzano, Decatur, Georgia, Meredith B. Stewart, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, New Orleans, Louisiana; Carol Brooke, Clermont Fraser Ripley, NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER, Raleigh, North Carolina; Brian Hauss, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, New York, New York; Robert J. Willis, LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A., Pittsboro, North Carolina, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Josh Stein, Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. Trent Taylor, FARMWORKER JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Amici Farmworker Justice, National Employment Law Project, Episcopal Farmworker Ministry, North Carolina State AFL-CIO, Student Action with Farmworkers, El Vinculo Hispano, Western North Carolina Workers' Center and North Carolina State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Raymond J. LaJeunesse, William L. Messenger, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC., Springfield, Virginia, for Amicus National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. Phillip Jacob Parker, Jr., Secretary and General Counsel, Stephen A. Woodson, Senior Associate General Counsel, NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, INC., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Amicus North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc.
Before RICHARDSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part by published opinion. Senior Judge Motz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Heytens joined. Judge Richardson wrote a separate opinion, concurring in the judgment.
Section 20.5 of North Carolina's 2017 Farm Act contains provisions making it illegal to enter into two types of contractual agreements: (1) any settlement agreement conditioned on an agricultural producer's union affiliation (the Settlement Provision) and (2) any agreement that would require an agricultural producer to process dues checkoffs for its farmworker-employees (the Dues Provision). The Farm Labor Organizing Committee and Valentin Alvarado Hernández (collectively, FLOC) contend that these prohibitions violate the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. FLOC initiated this action against Joshua Stein, the Attorney General of North Carolina, and Roy Cooper, the Governor of North Carolina (collectively, the State), seeking to invalidate and enjoin both provisions. In response to cross motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the Settlement Provision violated the Constitution and so enjoined it, but upheld the constitutionality of the Dues Provision, and then held that neither provision violated § 1981. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court as to the Settlement Provision and vacate the accompanying injunction, but affirm in all other respects.
This lawsuit concerns North Carolina's agricultural sector. Agriculture and agribusiness account for one-sixth of the state's economy and employ about 15% of its workforce. The vibrance of the state's agricultural community has resulted in North Carolina becoming a major producer of tobacco, Christmas trees, soybeans, corn, hay, and cotton.1
North Carolina's agricultural prominence owes much to the efforts of the state's farmworkers. Most (95%) North Carolina farmworkers are Latinx, primarily of Mexican descent. A substantial portion of these farmworkers are non-citizen H-2A workers, who are granted limited entry into the United States to work in the agricultural sector. The high percentage of Latinx farmworkers stands in stark contrast to the racial demographics of farm owners, who are almost always white.
The parties stipulate that FLOC, "the only [farmworker] labor union or labor organization in the state of North Carolina which engages in collective bargaining," represents many of the state's farmworkers. FLOC alleges that "[f]armworkers frequently experience pesticide exposure, inadequate access to drinking water and restrooms, and dilapidated labor camp housing." FLOC Opening Br. at 7. And it contends that farmworkers are particularly vulnerable to wage theft and other forms of mistreatment. According to FLOC, these problems are compounded for H-2A farmworkers who "rely on their employers for transportation, housing, and other basic needs," and whose lawful presence in the United States is inextricably linked to their relationship with their employer.
FLOC maintains that it is imperative that farmworkers retain the ability to organize collectively to achieve safe working environments, fair wages, and meaningful workplace grievance procedures. To do so, prior to enactment of Section 20.5, FLOC particularly relied on settlement agreements and dues checkoff agreements between agricultural producers and their employees.
Settlement agreements provide FLOC the ability to assist members with "securing settlements that include voluntary union recognition, entry into collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), or agreements by employers to remain neutral on employee union membership." FLOC Resp. & Reply Br. at 3. Practically speaking, these settlement terms allow FLOC to expand its reach while simultaneously allowing the parties to avoid protracted litigation.
In dues checkoff agreements, the agricultural producer agrees to withhold a portion of FLOC members' pay and then transfer the withheld earnings to FLOC as payment for that members' union dues. Because many FLOC members lack access to traditional banking institutions, this serves as a convenient way to ensure timely payment of dues.
It is undisputed that Section 20.5, the legislation FLOC challenges in this suit, effectively prohibits parties from entering into, and thus FLOC from relying on, settlement agreements and dues checkoff agreements.
The State explains that the challenged legislation is a product of North Carolina's long history as a "right-to-work" state. See State Opening & Resp. Br. at 4. Right-to-work laws "prohibit[ ] agreements—even between willing unions and employers—that would condition employment on being a member of a union." Id. North Carolina has repeatedly reaffirmed its right-to-work status, including in a 2013 law that "prohibits preferential pricing or access in purchase agreements" based on an agricultural producer's "status as a union or nonunion employer." Id. The State maintains that right-to-work policies ensure that both employees and employers retain the ability to freely choose whether to affiliate with a union. See id. at 4–5.
As State Senator William Brent Jackson, a co-sponsor of the legislation, explained during floor debate on the legislation, "Section 20.5 just strengthens our right to work statutes by declaring certain agreements involving agricultural producers are [against] public policy." The House sponsor, Representative Jimmy Dixon, similarly commented that the legislation was necessary to combat the "continued harassment" from "predatory folks [who] make a good living coming around and getting [farmworkers] to be dissatisfied." Representative Dixon noted further that Section 20.5 reinforces North Carolina's right-to-work policies and reduces a "regulatory burden on farms that is not required under federal law and is completely within the State's purview to regulate."
With minimal floor debate, the bill passed in both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly and was signed into law. Representative Dixon told the media that Section 20.5 would "enhance [the] local agricultural community and possibly be a deterrent to outside organizations in making attempts to establish unions where folks really don't want them or need them." Senator Jackson agreed that this was why the legislation was necessary.
FLOC brought this action challenging Section 20.5's Settlement Provision and Dues Provision in the Middle District of North Carolina. In considering the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the district court held the Settlement Provision violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmer v. Liberty Univ.
... ... statute. See Farm Lab. Org. Comm. v. Stein , 56 F.4th ... 339, 355 (4th ... ...
- Tyson v. Gay
- Clewis v. Worley