Ramirez v. DeCoster, Civ. No. 98-186-P-H (D. Me. 3/31/2000), Civ. No. 98-186-P-H.

• Decision Date: 31 March 2000
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 98-186-P-H.
• Parties: LUIS RAMIREZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. AUSTIN J. DeCOSTER, D/B/A/ DeCOSTER EGG FARM, ET AL., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

Page 1

LUIS RAMIREZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. AUSTIN J. DeCOSTER, D/B/A/ DeCOSTER EGG FARM, ET AL., Defendants.

Civ. No. 98-186-P-H.

United States District Court, D. Maine.

Filed May 18, 1998.

Dated March 31, 2000.

HAROLD J. FRIEDMAN, FRIEDMAN, BABCOCK & GAYTHWAITE, SIX CITY CENTER, P. O. BOX 4726, PORTLAND, ME 04112-4726, 761-0900 for ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS, plaintiff, [term 08/09/99], LUIS RAMIREZ, plaintiff, SERVANDO CAMPOS, plaintiff, ISIDRO PORTALES, plaintiff, GENARO ROMO RODRIGUEZ, plaintiff, JOSE R HERNANDEZ, plaintiff, ESTHER HERNANDEZ, plaintiff, RIGOBERTO DIAZ, JR, plaintiff, MARICELA DIAZ, plaintiff [term 05/27/99], EDGAR ELIZONDO, plaintiff, MARIA ELIZONDO, plaintiff, LAURO GARCIA, plaintiff, DORA GARCIA, plaintiff, ELDA HERNANDEZ, plaintiff, JUAN RAMON HERNANDEZ, plaintiff.

TIMOTHY J. O'BRIEN, ESQ., VERRILL & DANA, 1 PORTLAND SQUARE, P.O. BOX 586, PORTLAND, ME 04112, 774-4000, JEFFREY A. SCHREIBER, ESQ., SCHREIBER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., 99 ROSEWOOD DRIVE, DANVERS, MA 01923, 978-762-0100, JOHN J. MCGIVNEY, ESQ., RUBIN & RUDMAN, LLP, 50 ROWES WHARF, BOSTON, MA 02110, 617/330-7000 for AUSTIN J DECOSTER, dba, DECOSTER EGG FARM, dba, AUSTIN J. DECOSTER COMPANY, defendant.

THOMAS H. SOMERS, [term 08/28/98], HOFF, CURTIS, PACHT, CASSIDY & FRAME, 75 PEARL STREET, PO BOX 7855, PORTLAND, ME 04112-7855, 207/871-5750 for MAINE AG AND QUALITY EGG OF NEW ENGLAND, defendant.

THOMAS H. SOMERS (See above), KERIN E. STACKPOLE, ESQ., BERGERON, PARADIS & FITZPATRICK, 27 MAIN STREET, BURLINGTON, VT 05401 for QUALITY EGG OF NEW ENGLAND, defendant.

THOMAS H. SOMERS (See above), KERIN E. STACKPOLE, ESQ., (See above) for MAINE AG, defendant.

TIMOTHY J. O'BRIEN, ESQ., VERRILL & DANA (See above) for MAINE CONTRACT FARMING, LLC, defendant.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

D. BROCK HORNBY, Chief District Judge.

Former and current employees of DeCoster Egg Farms ("DeCoster") bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other DeCoster employees of Mexican descent. The workers claim that DeCoster injured them in numerous ways: by violating their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (racial discrimination); by violating their rights under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("AWPA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. (1983) (unsafe and unsanitary housing and false and misleading information regarding the terms and conditions of employment); by breaching their contracts (failure to provide free housing); and by fraudulently inducing them to enter into an employment relationship with DeCoster (false representations of free housing, safe housing, and free transportation). They seek to impose successor liability on a number of other companies.¹ The workers have moved for certification of their class and DeCoster has moved for summary judgment on all counts. Two of the successor companies, Quality Egg and Maine AG, have also moved for summary judgment on all counts against them.

I hold that (1) because the workers seek primarily compensatory and punitive damages and demand jury trials to assess them and because individual issues predominate, it is inappropriate to certify a class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23; (2) the workers are not "migrant agricultural workers" under the AWPA and are thus ineligible for protection under that Act; and (3) the workers have presented no genuine issue of material fact to support their fraud and breach of contract claims and DeCoster is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on those claims. Therefore, I DENY the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class with respect to all claims and I GRANT DeCoster's motion for summary judgment as to the workers' AWPA, fraud, and breach of contract claims. I GRANT DeCoster's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs Servando Campos's, Juan Hernandez's, and Elda Hernandez's individual claims of discrimination. I also GRANT DeCoster's motion for summary judgment as to the individual section 1981 claims regarding job placement, the provision of apartments, and the provision of pay. Further, I GRANT Maine AG's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Isidro Portales' section 1981 and AWPA claims. I also GRANT Maine AG's and Quality Egg's motion for summary judgment as to the workers' successor liability claim because the workers have shown no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Maine AG and Quality Egg may be liable as successors of DeCoster. What remains for trial are individual claims of racial discrimination against DeCoster on behalf of Luis Ramirez, Isidro Portales, Genaro Romo, Jose R. Hernandez, Esther Hernandez, Edgar Elizondo, Maria Elizondo, Lauro Garcia, and Dora Garcia.

I. ANALYSIS

A. MOTION TO CERTIFY THE CLASS

1. 42 U.S.C. § 1981

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), the workers seek certification as a class representing all workers of Mexican descent who are or were employed at DeCoster after 1988. The workers allege that DeCoster engaged in an overall pattern or practice of discrimination against workers of Mexican descent through (1) subjective decision-making; (2) blatant disparate treatment regarding job placement, housing placement, the application of job performance standards, and access to medical services; and (3) the maintenance of a racially hostile work environment. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 31, 38, 40, 44 — 47. Specifically, they seek on behalf of the class general compensatory and other non-pecuniary damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney's and expert's fees, a permanent injunction enjoining DeCoster "from maintaining a policy of discrimination against Mexicans regarding the terms and conditions of their employment," and a declaratory judgment that DeCoster's practices violate section 1981. Am. Compl. pp. 12-13.

(a) Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2)

Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) requires that "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole." Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) (emphasis added). The Advisory Committee Notes on Rule 23 state that subdivision (b)(2) "does not extend to cases in which the appropriate final relief relates exclusively or predominantly to money damages." Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 advisory committee notes (emphasis added). In determining whether money damages predominate, I follow the standard enunciated by the Fifth Circuit: "monetary relief predominates in (b)(2) class actions unless it is incidental to requested injunctive or declaratory relief. . . . By incidental, we mean damages that flow directly from liability to the class as a whole on the claims forming the basis of the injunctive or declaratory relief." Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 415 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

The relief sought in this case is predominantly money damages and, as such, is inappropriate for 23(b)(2) certification. The only injunctive relief the workers seek is to enjoin DeCoster from maintaining its alleged policy of discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment. However, only one of the named plaintiffs, Genaro Romo, is currently employed in the DeCoster operation (as an employee for Maine Contract Farming). Enjoining DeCoster from future acts of discrimination will not assist the plaintiffs who are no longer employed with DeCoster or its successor companies. The crux of the workers' complaint is their prayer for compensatory and punitive damages. Rather than seek back pay, an equitable remedy, the workers have instead requested compensatory damages resulting from their "emotional pain and mental anguish" and their "loss of enjoyment of life." Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 52, 53. These are legal remedies requiring individualized jury determinations of damages, dependent on intangible, subjective differences of each worker's circumstances, and are inappropriate for a 23(b)(2) class action. See Allison, 151 F.3d at 415-17; Jefferson v. Ingersoll Int'l Inc., 195 F.3d 894, 897 (7th Cir. 1999) (noting that in actions for compensatory and punitive damages in which a party seeks certification under 23(b)(2), it is possible for one member to recover substantial damages while another receives nothing); cf. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 254-56 (1978) (holding that claimants must submit proof of actual injury in § 1983 claims). The workers' request for punitive damages creates the same problem. Although they allege a broad pattern or practice of discrimination by DeCoster, a punitive damage award would necessarily relate both to the reprehensibility of DeCoster's conduct and to the compensatory damages awarded to each plaintiff. See Allison, 151 F.3d at 417-18; BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575, 580 (1996); Rowlett v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 832 F.2d 194, 207 (1st Cir. 1987) (stating that punitive damages must relate to the character of the defendant's act and the nature and extent of harm to the plaintiff), overruled in part on other grounds by Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14, 27 (1st Cir. 1999). Each plaintiff may have been affected in substantially different ways depending on such factors as the length and dates of employment, the type of employment, who his/her supervisor was, and the specific housing the worker lived in. Therefore, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is inappropriate.

(b) Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3)

To certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3), a court must find that "questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Subdivision (b)(3) specifically applies to those cases "in which a class action would achieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote uniformity of...