Rowland v. Marshall, No. 80-1451

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore WINTER, SPROUSE and ERVIN; PER CURIAM
Citation650 F.2d 28
Docket NumberNo. 80-1451
Decision Date23 March 1981
Parties24 Wage & Hour Cas. (BN 1324 M. Curtis ROWLAND, Malcolm Bailey, Kent Hudson, R. D. Mason, William Murray, Willie Redd, Franklin Shelton, Averett Simpson, and all other Virginia Tobacco Growers Similarly Situated, Appellees, v. F. Ray MARSHALL, United States Secretary of Labor, and David O. Williams, Administrator, United States Employment Service, Appellants.

Page 28

650 F.2d 28
24 Wage & Hour Cas. (BN 1324
M. Curtis ROWLAND, Malcolm Bailey, Kent Hudson, R. D. Mason,
William Murray, Willie Redd, Franklin Shelton,
Averett Simpson, and all other Virginia
Tobacco Growers Similarly
Situated, Appellees,
v.
F. Ray MARSHALL, United States Secretary of Labor, and David
O. Williams, Administrator, United States
Employment Service, Appellants.
No. 80-1451.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 1, 1980.
Decided March 23, 1981.

Page 29

John S. Edwards, U. S. Atty., Roanoke, Va. (Thomas R. King, Jr. and Thomas J. Bondurant, Asst. U. S. Attys., Roanoke, Va., Carin Ann Clauss, Sol. of Labor, Nathaniel Baccus, III, Associate Sol., Lois G. Williams, Deputy Associate Sol., Kerry L. Adams, U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., on brief) for appellants.

Albert D. Misler, Washington, D. C. (Morris Kletzkin, Friedlander, Misler, Friedlander, Sloan & Herz, Washington, D. C., on brief) for appellees.

Before WINTER, SPROUSE and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Several Virginia tobacco growers who filed petitions with the Immigration and Naturalization Service to admit nonimmigrant aliens 1 for the 1980 tobacco harvest brought an action in district court to enjoin the Secretary of Labor (hereafter "the Secretary") from imposing a $3.51 adverse effect wage rate (AEWR) on them for the 1980 season. The AEWR is the rate that an employer must pay both domestic and foreign agricultural workers if he seeks to import temporary foreign laborers into the United States. 20 C.F.R. 655.200(b). 2 The purpose of the AEWR is to prevent the importation of nonimmigrant aliens from deflating the wages and from adversely affecting the working conditions of United States workers similarly employed. 20 C.F.R. § 655.0(e).

A significant factor in assessing the AEWR is the extent to which the use of aliens in a particular area has depressed the wages of similarly employed domestic workers. If the Secretary finds that the use of aliens has not had a depressing effect, he may conclude that the prevailing wage rate is the AEWR. 20 C.F.R. § 655.200(b). If the use of aliens has affected the wage rate, however, the AEWR may be set higher than the prevailing wage rate. Since 1968, the Secretary has computed the AEWR for any given affected area using the methodology set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 655.207(b)(1), which provides in relevant part:

(T)he adverse effect rate for each year shall be computed by adjusting the prior year's adverse effect rate by the percentage change (from the second year previous to the prior year) in the U. S. Department of Agriculture...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Mendoza v. Solis, Civil Action No. 11–1790 (BAH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 21 Febrero 2013
    ...from the importation of foreign labor. See, e.g., Williams v. Usery, 531 F.2d 305, 307 (5th Cir.1976); see also Rowland v. Marshall, 650 F.2d 28, 29 (4th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (“The purpose of the AEWR is to prevent the importation of nonimmigrant aliens from deflating the wages and from a......
  • American Federation of Labor and Congress of Indus. Organizations v. Brock, Nos. 87-5258--87-5260
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 22 Diciembre 1987
    ...United States workers ... permitted DOL [Department] to set an AEWR higher than the prevailing wage rate"); Rowland v. Marshall, 650 F.2d 28, 30 (4th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (same); Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc. v. Usery, 531 F.2d 299, 304 (5th Cir.1976) Because the Department makes n......
  • Virginia Agr. Growers Ass'n, Inc. v. Donovan, Civ. A. No. 83-0108-D.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • 27 Enero 1984
    ...in furtherance of its responsibilities under the H-2 program has repeatedly been upheld by federal appellate courts. Rowland v. Marshall, 650 F.2d 28 (4th Cir.1981); Flecha v. Quiros, 567 F.2d 1154 (1st Cir.1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 945, 98 S.Ct. 2846, 56 L.Ed.2d 786 (1978); Rogers v. L......
  • Shoreham Co-op. Apple Producers Ass'n, Inc. v. Donovan, No. 1147
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 13 Junio 1985
    ...domestic workers' jobs. See Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc. v. Usery, 531 F.2d 299, 304 (5th Cir.1976); see also Rowland v. Marshall, 650 F.2d 28, 30 (4th Cir.1981). Neither the Immigration and Nationality Act nor the regulations promulgated thereunder specify any formula that DOL must use ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Mendoza v. Solis, Civil Action No. 11–1790 (BAH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 21 Febrero 2013
    ...from the importation of foreign labor. See, e.g., Williams v. Usery, 531 F.2d 305, 307 (5th Cir.1976); see also Rowland v. Marshall, 650 F.2d 28, 29 (4th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (“The purpose of the AEWR is to prevent the importation of nonimmigrant aliens from deflating the wages and from a......
  • American Federation of Labor and Congress of Indus. Organizations v. Brock, Nos. 87-5258--87-5260
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 22 Diciembre 1987
    ...United States workers ... permitted DOL [Department] to set an AEWR higher than the prevailing wage rate"); Rowland v. Marshall, 650 F.2d 28, 30 (4th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (same); Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc. v. Usery, 531 F.2d 299, 304 (5th Cir.1976) Because the Department makes n......
  • Virginia Agr. Growers Ass'n, Inc. v. Donovan, Civ. A. No. 83-0108-D.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • 27 Enero 1984
    ...in furtherance of its responsibilities under the H-2 program has repeatedly been upheld by federal appellate courts. Rowland v. Marshall, 650 F.2d 28 (4th Cir.1981); Flecha v. Quiros, 567 F.2d 1154 (1st Cir.1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 945, 98 S.Ct. 2846, 56 L.Ed.2d 786 (1978); Rogers v. L......
  • Shoreham Co-op. Apple Producers Ass'n, Inc. v. Donovan, No. 1147
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 13 Junio 1985
    ...domestic workers' jobs. See Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc. v. Usery, 531 F.2d 299, 304 (5th Cir.1976); see also Rowland v. Marshall, 650 F.2d 28, 30 (4th Cir.1981). Neither the Immigration and Nationality Act nor the regulations promulgated thereunder specify any formula that DOL must use ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT