Secretary of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Lauritzen

Citation835 F.2d 1529
Decision Date08 February 1988
Docket NumberNo. 86-2770,86-2770
Parties28 Wage & Hour Cas. (BN 654, 107 Lab.Cas. P 35,003 SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael LAURITZEN and Marilyn Lauritzen, individually and doing business as Lauritzen Farms, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Richard M. Van Orden, Grand Rapids, Mich., for defendants-appellants.

Paula Wright Coleman, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WOOD, FLAUM, and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.

HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Circuit Judge.

This, as unlikely as it may at first seem, is a federal pickle case. The issue is whether the migrant workers who harvest the pickle crop of defendant Lauritzen Farms, in effect defendant Michael Lauritzen, are employees for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), 1 or are instead independent contractors not subject to the requirements of the Act. 2 The Secretary, alleging that the migrant harvesters are employees, not independent contractors, brought this action seeking to enjoin the defendants from violating the minimum wage requirements and to enforce the record-keeping and child labor provisions of the Act.

After discovery, which entailed principally collecting depositions of migrant workers who had worked for the defendants, the Secretary moved for partial summary judgment. The defendants countered with affidavits of some of the previously deposed migrant workers which contradicted their earlier depositions. The contradictions were charged to language interpretation difficulties and to the absence of defendants' counsel when the depositions were taken. 3 The district court granted the Secretary partial summary judgment, determining the migrants to be employees, not independent contractors. Brock v. Lauritzen, 624 F.Supp. 966, 970 (E.D.Wis.1985) (Lauritzen I ). Trial was then set to determine the remaining issues of possible minimum wage violations, child labor violations, and the sufficiency of the defendants' statutorily required record keeping. By an amended complaint, however, the minimum wage violation allegations were eliminated. The Secretary then sought summary judgment on the remainder of the case. Some migrant workers sought unsuccessfully to intervene to protect their claimed contractual status. The defendants protested that they had raised material factual issues, but the district court disagreed. The district court found that the controlling material facts were largely undisputed and entered final judgment on the issues of record-keeping and child labor violations, enjoining the defendants from further violations of the Act, and dismissing the action. Brock v. Lauritzen, 649 F.Supp. 16, 18-19 (E.D.Wis.1986) (Lauritzen II ). Both summary judgment orders are appealed as well as the district court's denial of the defendants' motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), seeking relief from the first entry of partial summary judgment.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

We must examine the factual background of the case to determine whether the employment status of the migrant workers could be concluded as a matter of law.

On a yearly basis the defendants plant between 100 to 330 acres of pickles on land they either own or lease. The harvested crop is sold to various processors in the area. The pickles are handpicked, usually from July through September, by migrant families from out of state. Sometimes the children, some under twelve years of age, work in some capacity in the fields alongside their parents. Many of the migrant families return each harvest season by arrangement with the defendants, but, each year, other migrant families often come for the first time from Florida, Texas and elsewhere looking for work. The defendants would inform the families, either orally or sometimes in writing, of the amount of compensation they were to receive. Compensation is set by the defendants at one-half of the proceeds the defendants realize on the sale of the pickles that the migrants harvest on a family basis. Toward the end of the harvest season, when the crop is less abundant and, therefore, less profitable, the defendants offer the migrants a bonus to encourage them to stay to complete the harvest, but some leave anyway.

Wisconsin law requires a form "Migrant Work Agreement" to be signed, and it was used in this case. It provides for the same pay scale as is paid by the defendants except the minimum wage is guaranteed. The Wisconsin Migrant Law invalidates agreements that endeavor to convert migrant workers from employees to independent contractors. Wis.Stat.Ann. Sec. 103.90-.97 (West 1987); 71 Op. Att'y Gen. Wis. 92 (1982). Accompanying the work agreement is a pickle price list purporting to set forth what the processors will pay the defendants for pickles of various grades. This price list is the basis of the migrant workers' compensation. The workers are not parties to the determination of prices agreed upon between the defendants and the processors.

All matters relating to planting, fertilizing, insecticide spraying, and irrigation of the crop are within the defendants' direction, and performed by workers other than the migrant workers here involved. Occasionally a migrant who has worked for the defendant previously and knows the harvesting will suggest the need for irrigation. In order to conduct their pickle-raising business, the defendants have made a considerable investment in land, buildings, equipment, and supplies. The defendants provide the migrants free housing which the defendants assign, but with regard for any preference the migrant families may have. The defendants also supply migrants with the equipment they need for their work. The migrants need supply only work gloves for themselves.

The harvest area is subdivided into migrant family plots. The defendants make the allocation after the migrant families inform them how much acreage the family can harvest. Much depends on which areas are ready to harvest, and when a particular migrant family may arrive ready to work. The family, not the defendants, determines which family members will pick the pickles. If a family arrives before the harvest begins, the defendants may, nevertheless, provide them with housing. A few may be given some interim duties or be permitted to work temporarily for other farmers. When the pickles are ready to pick, however, the migrant family's attention must be devoted only to their particular pickle plot.

The pickles that are ready to harvest must be picked regularly and completely before they grow too large and lose value when classified. The defendants give the workers pails in which to put the picked pickles. When the pails are filled by the pickers the pails are dumped into the defendants' sacks. At the end of the harvest day a family member will use one of defendants' trucks to haul the day's pick to one of defendants' grading stations or sorting sheds. After the pickles are graded the defendants give the migrant family member a receipt showing pickle grade and weight. The income of the individual families is not always equal. That is due, to some extent, to the ability of the migrant family to judge the pickles' size, color, and freshness so as to achieve pickles of better grade and higher value.

The workers describe their work generally as just "pulling the pickles off." It is not always physically easy, however, because the work involves stooping and kneeling and constant use of the hands, often under a hot sun. Picking pickles requires little or no prior training or experience; a short demonstration will suffice. One migrant worker recalled that when he was ten years old it had taken him about five minutes to learn pickle picking. Pickles continue to grow and develop until picked, but not uniformly, so harvesting is a continuing process. The migrant workers' income depends on the results of the particular family's efforts. The defendants explain that the migrants exercise care for both the plants and the pickles, which results in maximum yields, a benefit to the family as well as to the defendants. Machine harvesting, although advantageous for other crops, is not suitable for pickle harvesting. The defendants leave the when and how to pick to the families under this incentive arrangement. The defendants occasionally visit the fields to check on the families, the crop, and to supervise irrigation. The defendant, Michael Lauritzen, who actually operates the business, is sometimes referred to as the "boss." Some workers expressed the belief that he had the right to fire them.

The district court considered the factual background generally set forth above to be largely undisputed. Lauritzen I, 624 F.Supp. at 966. The defendants deny that some of the facts are undisputed because some of the migrants subsequently changed their testimony. They argue that some migrants had language problems which caused them to respond incorrectly during their depositions. To support this argument, the defendants presented counteraffidavits from four migrants which allege in conclusory language that their relationship with the defendants had been at all times "that of an independent businessman or contractor and not one of an employee." They "contracted," they say, with the defendants. In other respects these later counteraffidavits did not dispute the basic factual background that we have recounted, except that these four migrants claimed that their pickle-picking expertise required at least a complete harvest to develop. The conclusions set forth in the affidavit, obviously in the language of a lawyer, not that of the migrants themselves, create no material factual issues.

The affidavits of defendant Michael Lauritzen, for the most part, track the facts found to be undisputed by the trial judge, adding...

To continue reading

Request your trial
217 cases
  • Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 30, 2018
    ...d ); Brock v. Superior Care, Inc. (2d Cir. 1988) 840 F.2d 1054, 1058-1059 ( Superior Care ); Sec'y of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Lauritzen (7th Cir. 1987) 835 F.2d 1529, 1535-1539 ( Lauritzen ); see id. at pp. 1539-1545 (conc. opn. of Easterbrook, J.); Silent Woman, Ltd. v. Donovan (E.D.......
  • Brant v. Schneider Nat'l, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 3, 2022
    ...contract. "The FLSA is designed to defeat rather than implement contractual arrangements." Secretary of Labor v. Lauritzen , 835 F.2d 1529, 1544–45 (7th Cir. 1987) (Easterbrook, J., concurring). Brant's allegations about the economic reality of his working relationship with Schneider state ......
  • S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • March 23, 1989
    ...authorities reason, the harvesters were within the intended reach of the protective legislation. (Sec'y of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Lauritzen (7th Cir.1987) 835 F.2d 1529, 1536-1538, cert. denied (1988) 488 U.S. 898, 109 S.Ct. 243, 102 L.Ed.2d 232 Beliz v. W.H. McLeod & Sons Packing Co......
  • Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • August 16, 2018
    ...are none.’ " Simpkins v. DuPage Hous. Auth. , 893 F.3d 962, 964 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Sec'y of Labor, U.S. Dep't of Labor v. Lauritzen , 835 F.2d 1529, 1534 (7th Cir. 1987) )."In the field of antitrust law, summary judgment serves a vital function—it avoids wasteful trials and prevents l......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
5 books & journal articles
  • Employment relationship defined
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 Part I. The employment relationship
    • May 5, 2018
    ...by cake decorators “is obviously integral” to the business of selling cakes which are custom decorated); Sec’y of Labor v. Lauritzen , 835 F.2d 1529, 1537-38 (7th Cir. 1987) (“It does not take much of a record to demonstrate that picking the pickles is a necessary and integral part of the p......
  • Employment Relationship Defined
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2017 Part I. The employment relationship
    • August 9, 2017
    ...by cake decorators “is obviously integral” to the business of selling cakes which are custom decorated); Sec ’ y of Labor v. Lauritzen , 835 F.2d 1529, 1537-38 (7th Cir. 1987) (“It does not take much of a record to demonstrate that picking the pickles is a necessary and integral part of the......
  • BREAKING DOWN STATUS.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 98 No. 3, February 2021
    • February 1, 2021
    ..."FIRST, they must be willing to contract"). (97.) See supra notes 41-43, and accompanying text. (98.) See Sec'y of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529, 1539 (7th Cir. 1987) (Easterbrook, J., concurring) (observing the law's reliance on a judicially administered ex post (99.) For example, empl......
  • Renovating Azam: a proposal for rebuilding the reliance test in real estate torts.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 79 No. 11, December 2005
    • December 1, 2005
    ...feared by litigants who want to know what to expect): th'ol' 'totality of the circumstances' test."); Secretary of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529, 1539 (7th Cir.1988)(Easterbrook, J., concurring)("[A] legal approach calling on judges to examine all of the facts, and balance them, avoids ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • 29 C.F.R. § 500.20 Definitions
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2021 Edition Title 29. Labor Subtitle B. Regulations Relating to Labor Chapter V. Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor Subchapter A. Regulations Part 500. Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Subpart A. General Provisions
    • January 1, 2021
    ...722 (1947), Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Associates, Inc., 603 F.2d 748 (9th Cir. 1979), Sec'y of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529 (7th Cir. cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 (1988); Beliz v. McLeod, 765 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1985), and Castillo v. Givens, 704 F.2d 181 (5th Cir.......
  • 29 C.F.R. § 500.20 Definitions
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2019 Edition Title 29. Labor Subtitle B. Regulations Relating to Labor Chapter V. Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor Subchapter A. Regulations Part 500. Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Subpart A. General Provisions
    • January 1, 2019
    ...722 (1947), Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Associates, Inc., 603 F.2d 748 (9th Cir. 1979), Sec'y of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529 (7th Cir. cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 (1988); Beliz v. McLeod, 765 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1985), and Castillo v. Givens, 704 F.2d 181 (5th Cir.......

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