Rodriguez v. SGLC, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:08-cv-01971-MCE-KJN,2:08-cv-01971-MCE-KJN |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | FRAY MARCELINO LOPEZ RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SGLC, INC. et al., Defendants. |
This action for unpaid wages, breach of contract, violation of California labor and housing laws, unfair competition, and fraud proceeds on Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed against, among others, Defendants SGLC, Inc., Salvador Gonzalez, Julian Gonzalez, Salvador Gonzalez doing business as Salvador Gonzalez Farm Labor Contractor (collectively, "SGLC Defendants" or "SGLC") and Vino Farms ("Vino"). Presently before the Court is Vino's Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1 (ECF No. 168.) Plaintiffs filed a timely opposition. (ECF No. 206.) For the reasons set forth below, Vino's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.2
Vino grows wine grapes in the San Joaquin Valley and other parts of California. SGLC is a licensed farm labor contractor located in Galt, California. SGLC contracts with Vino and other agricultural growers to supply farm labor. Plaintiffs are Mexican farmworkers admitted to the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) and employed by the various Defendants under temporary "H-2A" visas.
The H-2A program was established as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"), Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (). See U.S.C. § 1188. Under the H-2A program, a category of nonimmigrant foreign workers can be used for temporary agricultural employment within the United States. See id. Agricultural employers are permitted to hire nonimmigrant aliens as workers under the H-2A program if the Department of Labor ("DOL") first certifies that (1) there are insufficient domestic workers who are willing, able, and qualified to perform the work at the time and place needed; and (2) the employment of aliens will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of domestic workers. See id. §§ 1184(c)(1), 1188(a)(1).
The conditions under which an H-2A worker may be allowed into the United States for temporary agricultural employment are prescribed by the H-2A regulations. The H-2A regulations include provisions related to housing, meals, work-related equipment, and transportation. For example, an employer seeking the services of H-2A workers must compensate them at a rate not less than the federal minimum wage, the prevailing wage rate in the area, or the "adverse effect wage rate," whichever is highest. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(b)(9). The "adverse effect wage rate" is the minimum wage rate that the DOL determines is necessary to ensure that wages of similarly situateddomestic workers will not be adversely affected by the employment of H-2A workers. See id. §§ 655.100(b), 655.107. An employer must also pay an H-2A worker for inbound transportation and subsistence costs, if the worker completes fifty percent of the contract work period, unless the employer has previously done so. See id. § 655.102(b)(5)(i). Similarly, if the worker completes the contract work period, the employer is generally responsible for the payment of outbound transportation and subsistence costs. See id. § 655.102(b)(5)(ii).
On January 1, 2008, Vino Farms entered into a contract with SGLC entitled "Agreement for Farm Labor Contracting Services" (hereinafter "the services contract"). Under the services contract, Vino engaged SGLC as an independent farm labor contractor "to perform pruning, tying, training, suckering, harvesting, and various other types of field work" on properties managed by Vino Farms. The service contract provided that SGLC is not an agent or employee of Vino. The contract also stated that "[p]ersons hired by [SGLC] shall be employees of [SGLC] alone and not employees of [Vino]." Finally, the contract provided that the "sole and exclusive control and supervision of [Plaintiffs] with respect to their employment" belonged to SGLC.
On February 20, 2008, SGLC held a meeting with a number of the grower Defendants, including Vino, to discuss SGLC's plan to apply for workers through the H-2A program. Julie Ball, the executive assistant to Vino's Executive Vice President and shareholder Kim Ledbetter-Bronson, attended the meeting. Vino contends that Ball did not have the authority to speak on behalf of Vino or to authorize SGLC to act on Vino's behalf; she simply attended the meeting to take notes and to report to Vino what SGLC presented at the meeting. At the meeting, and again after the meeting, Salvador Gonzalez asked Vino to provide a letter of recommendation in support of SGLC's application for H-2A workers. On February 25, 2008, Vino provided SGLC with the requested letter, which stated:
SGLC acquired part of its workforce for the 2008 growing season by applying for, recruiting, and hiring Plaintiffs from Colima, Mexico through the H-2A Program. SGLC hired approximately 178 workers through this program, including Plaintiffs. Vino did not apply for workers through the H-2A program, and did not assist SGLC with the preparation of the H-2A application. Vino did not give SGLC any input regarding how many workers SGLC applied for in the H-2A application. SGLC is the sole employer listed on the H-2A application.
Salvador Gonzalez and his father, Julian Gonzalez, made a trip to Mexico to inquire about recruiting workers for the H-2A program. Vino farms contends that it did not have a representative present on this trip. Julian and Salvador made a return trip to Mexico, to meet with the local governor and potential H-2A workers. The SGLC Defendants were accompanied by other grower Defendants on this trip, but no representative from Vino went on the trip. Plaintiffs were recruited and selected for SGLC through a Mexican government agency referred to as "the CNC."
SGLC entered into an individual employment contract with each Plaintiff. Vino contends it was not a party to these contracts, and was not involved in preparing the contracts or deciding the terms and conditions to be included. Plaintiffs' wages, both hourly and piece, were determined in the employment contracts between Plaintiffs and SGLC. Vino did not determine the hourly or piece wage rates that SGLC listed in the contracts. Rather, SGLC told Vino that SGLC was required to pay Plaintiffs certain wages pursuant to H-2A regulations, and SGLC entered those wages into the contracts.
Similarly, the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs' transportation to California, and reimbursement for transportation expenses, were part of the labor contracts between SGLC and Plaintiffs. SGLC alone provided Plaintiffs with transportation from Mexico to California, and sent Julian Gonzalez to keep track of Plaintiffs' expenses incurred on thetrip.
Plaintiffs arrived in California on Thursday, July 17, 2008, and began working the next day. SGLC's workweek runs from Monday through Sunday. None of Plaintiffs began working on Vino's property until Tuesday, July 22, 2008, at the earliest.
The employment contracts between SGLC and Plaintiffs provided that "free transportation will be provided from the housing location to the work site and return each day." SGLC provided transportation on buses solely owned and operated by SGLC, at SGLC's expense. Vino did not provide transportation. Vino contends that neither Vino nor SGLC required Plaintiffs to utilize the buses provided by SGLC to get to and from work, and neither Defendant attempted to prohibit Plaintiffs from using other methods of transportation.
Vino did not participate in training Plaintiffs, and did not have disciplinary authority over Plaintiffs. Vino did not supervise Plaintiffs or control their work activities; rather, SGLC's foremen exclusively supervised Plaintiffs. SGLC provided most, if not all, of Plaintiffs work equipment. Vino provided a tractor and equipment attached to the tractor, which most Plaintiffs would not have used. Vino did not determine what time Plaintiffs' workday started or ended, and did not tell Plaintiffs when to take meal or rest breaks. SGLC had the responsibility of telling Plaintiffs when to take meal and rest breaks when they worked at an hourly rate. When Plaintiffs worked at a piece rate, they individually determined when to take their breaks.
Vino did not prepare Plaintiffs' payroll. SGLC employees, not Vino, calculated how much to pay Plaintiffs and prepared their paychecks and pay stubs. Because Plaintiffs were never able to produce a sufficient quantity to qualify for payment on a piece rate basis, SGLC always paid Plaintiffs pursuant to the hourly rate specified in the labor contracts. SGLC tracked Plaintiffs' hours with "Daily Labor Sheets." Vino did not prepare any type of time sheet to keep track of Plaintiffs' hours. The Daily Labor Sheets were presented to Vino's Vineyard Manager who would briefly review the sheet, sign it, and return it to the SGLC foreman. This allowed the Vineyard Manager to verify that theDaily Labor Sheet contained an accurate representation of the farm labor services that SGLC had provided.
SGLC had the sole authority to terminate Plaintiffs. Vino could not and did not terminate any of the Plaintiffs. Likewise, Vino did not recommend any of the Plaintiffs for termination.
SGLC was entirely responsible for Plaintiffs' housing, pursuant to SGLC's contract with Plaintiffs and the H-2A regulations. Vino did not own, construct, operate, or maintain any of the employee housing units where Plaintiffs were housed during the H-2A period. Labor Camp 17, where many Plaintiffs stayed, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial