Yeend v. Akima Glob. Servs.
| Decision Date | 23 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:20-CV-1281 (TJM/CFH) |
| Parties | DALILA YEEND and BOUNNAM PHIMASONE, Plaintiffs, v. AKIMA GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, a/k/a AGS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
DECISION & ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the Supreme Court of Rensselaer County, New York. See dkt. # 18. Defendant opposes the motion.
This case arises out of Plaintiffs' detention at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (“BFDF”) that the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agency operates in Batavia, New York. Plaintiffs filed their state-court summons and complaint on September 3, 2020. See Complaint (“Cmplt.”) dkt. # 1-3. The Complaint alleges that while detained at the BFDF Plaintiffs Dalila Yeend and Bounnam Phimasone “were employed by Defendant Akima Global Servcies, LLC (“AGS”), the large for-profit corporation that operates” that facility. Id. at ¶ 1. AGS allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs for their labor. Id. Instead, they received a $1 commissary credit for every day they worked. Id. Plaintiffs' pay was the same regardless of the hours they worked. Id.
Plaintiffs allege that “AGS contracts with the federal government to confine immigrants at the detention center.” Id. at ¶ 2. Without stating specifically who pays AGS or under what authority, Plaintiffs allege that AGS “is paid a daily rate for each bed filled per day.” Id. at ¶ 2. ACS also “hires non-detained employees to work in its kitchen and perform maintenance work[.]” Id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiffs allegedly performed similar work. Id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiffs allege that these workers “are paid at market rates for their labor, ” presumably by AGS. Id. Plaintiffs also contend that “AGS increases its profits by failing to pay Plaintiffs and other detainees for their work.” Id. Moreover, they insist, AGS's pay practices “[depress] local wages and [exploit] detainees[.]” Id. at ¶ 4. These detainees are often held indefinitely “without ever committing a crime.” Id. The wages that detainees such as Plaintiffs receive fail to meet the New York State minimum wage and violate State law. Id. at ¶ 5. Use of such unpaid labor, Plaintiffs claim, also violates Article III, Section 24 of the New York Constitution. Id. Plaintiffs have now been released from immigration detention and reside lawfully in New York. Id. at ¶ 6.
Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that ICE is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Id. at ¶ 18. ICE's “mission is to ‘promote homeland security through the criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws governing border control customs, trade, and immigration.” Id. ICE “detains” a variety of persons “who are awaiting resolution of various immigration matters.” Id. at ¶ 19. Like the Plaintiffs in this case many individuals ICE holds “are released back in to the United States following a period of detention.” Id. AGS is one of a number of “private for-profit corporations” that ICE contracts with to bring about “this mass incarceration of immigrants” by having those companies “[manage] operations for [a] civil detention center” like BFDF. Id. at ¶ 20. Plaintiffs contend that AGS earns millions of dollars each year from United States taxpayers, and the company's “profits are enhanced by taking the Plaintiffs' labor without payment of wages as required by law.” Id. at ¶ 22.
Plaintiffs allege that AGS's contract with ICE mandates that the company “comply with state and local laws.” Id. at ¶ 23. The New York Constitution, Article III, Section 24, provides that “no person in any [ ] prison, penitentiary, jail or reformatory, shall be required or allowed to work, while under sentence thereto, at any trade, industry or occupation, wherein or whereby his or her work, or the product or profit of his or her work, shall be farmed out, contracted, given or sold to any person, firm, association or corporation.” Id. at ¶ 24.
AGS employed Plaintiffs to work “in their Detention Center.” Id. at ¶ 25. Among the jobs Plaintiffs performed were “delivering and serving meals, cleaning, sweeping, mopping, taking out trash, . . . custodial duties, and generally maintaining the 650-bed detention center.” Id. AGS also uses detainee workers in food preparation, custodial work in the kitchen, recreation area, processing area, common areas in the housing units, in the main hallways and “traverse areas, ” on the grounds, and as librarians. Id. at ¶ 26. AGS pays other non-detained workers for food preparation and custodial work “similar to that performed by Plaintiffs and other detainees.” Id. at ¶ 27.
Plaintiffs allege that they “were not paid for their labor” and “[i]nstead . . . received $1 per day in commissary credit, regardless of” the “hours they worked.” Id. at ¶ 28. AGS determined the number of hours Plaintiffs worked. Id. at ¶ 29. “Plaintiffs were captive and routinely required to be ready, willing, and able to perform any task asked of them” during the day. Id. at ¶ 30. AGS put Plaintiffs' wages into their commissary accounts, where they could only purchase items Defendant offered for sale. Id. at ¶ 31. The money could not be converted to cash. Id. Instead, Plaintiffs could use their earnings only on “toiletries, non-perishable food items, thermal clothing and other similar items” sold in the commissary. Id. at ¶ 33. Plaintiffs are only permitted to make phone calls to family and friends outside the facility if they have cash in their commissary account. Id. at ¶ 35. AGS operated the commissary. Id. at ¶ 33. Detainees are not permitted to possess money in the BFDF. Id. at ¶ 34.
Plaintiffs never received a written statement “at the time of their hiring or at any subsequent time” that gave them “the name and contact information of their employer, or their rates of pay.” Id. at ¶ 36. They never received paystubs that laid out the hours they had worked each week. Id. at ¶ 37. They did not receive the New York State minimum wage for the hours they worked. Id. ¶ 38. Plaintiffs' low pay rate left them with insufficient funds to communicate with their family or provide them with support. Id. at ¶ 39. Plaintiffs also could not speak to their attorneys, gain access to adequate toiletries, buy food from the commissary, and lacked sufficient funds to provide for themselves after release from the facility. Id.
“[A] security guard for Defendant AGS” allegedly “hired Plaintiff Yeend to work on kitchen duty” at the facility in early July 2018. Id. at ¶ 40. A guard instructed Plaintiff on how to perform the job and told her when she needed to be at work each day. Id. at ¶ 41. Until Plaintiff's release on August 17, 2018, Plaintiff worked on the kitchen staff. Id. at ¶ 42. She “was responsible for a food cart.” Id. She did custodial work and food-cart support three times a day during meal periods. Id. Plaintiff worked every day. Id. She worked about one and one-half hours at breakfast, another one and one-half hours at lunch, and about two hours at dinner. Id. at ¶ 43. Plaintiff's tasks “included transporting the food cart to and from the kitchen, arranging and serving food, collecting trays, wiping tables, sweeping and mopping.” Id. She worked 4-5 hours a day, seven days a week. Id. at ¶ 44. Every day that she worked the time between the start of her work and the end of her day exceeded ten hours. Id. at ¶ 45. She did not work consecutive hours. Id. Plaintiff also occasionally did other work outside the kitchen work. Id. at ¶ 49. On one occasion, she cleaned a housing cell “that had become infected with head lice.” Id.
At the end of each week, Plaintiff Yeend signed a sheet provided by AGS that verified the number of days she worked. Id. at ¶ 46. She received $1 for each day. Id. This compensation came in the form of a credit in her commissary account. Id. at ¶ 48. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff for the work she did outside the kitchen. Id. at ¶ 49. W hen she helped remove the head lice, AGS “paid” her for this work “by giving her items AGS had confiscated from other women who had been transferred out of” the facility. Id. Plaintiff Yeend never received a pay stub or other written documentation of her work hours and pay. Id. at ¶ 50. AGS only provided cash to Plaintiff when she won her release; AGS provided Plaintiff with cash for the amount remaining in her commissary account. Id. at ¶ 51.
A security guard “hired” Plaintiff Bounnam Phimasone in late 2018 to work in maintenance at the facility. Id. at ¶ 52. During his detention, Phimasone did custodial work in the common area of the housing unit. Id. at ¶ 53. He buffed and cleaned the floors, regularly using cleaning chemicals and heavy tools. Id. AGS provided the tools and chemicals for that work. Id. at ¶ 54. AGS's agents told Plaintiff what work to do and assigned his work schedule. Id. at ¶ 55. Plaintiff worked about three hours a day, five days a week, from his hiring until his release from detention on August 6, 2019. Id. at ¶ 56. He often had to clean floors twice, as they became dirty after the first cleaning. Id. at ¶ 57. He worked six hours a day when he had to clean the floors twice. Id.
Every Thursday, an AGS security officer brought Plaintiff to a guard's office. Id. at ¶ 58. There Plaintiff signed a paper that confirmed the work he had performed the previous week and the number of days he worked. Id. $5.00 would be transferred to Plaintiff's commissary account. Id. Plaintiff did not receive cash, but instead obtained a $5 commissary credit. Id. at ¶ 59. Plaintiff did not provide any written consent to deposit his earnings in the commissary account. Id. at ¶ 60. Plaintiff did not receive a pay stub or any other written documentation of his earnings. Id. at ¶ 61. The only wages he actually...
To continue reading
Request your trial