Perez v. Bland Farms Production & Packing, LLC et al

Filing 109

ORDER directing the parties to jointly calculate the amount of back wages owed for the 2015 and 2016 seasons, and within 14 days from the date of this order, provide the amount to the Court. Once the parties have done so, the Court will enter the appropriate judgment. Compliance due by 8/14/2017. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 07/31/2017. (thb)

IN

THE

UNITED

FOR THE

STATES

DISTRICT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF

COURT

GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

R.

ALEXANDER ACOSTA,

*

Secretary of Labor, United
States Department of Labor,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

v,

*
BLAND

FARMS

PRODUCTION

&

CV

614-053

*

PACKING, LLC and
DELBERT BLAND,

*
*
•jic-

Defendants.

*

ORDER

Under

the

Fair

Labor

Standards

Act,

employers

must

generally pay their employees overtime wages when the employees
work

more

than

40

hours

in

a

week.

29

U.S.C.

Employees "employed in agriculture," however,
to

overtime

wages.

29

U.S.C.

Packing,

LLC's

are not entitled

§ 213(b) (12).

primarily about whether Defendant

This

Bland Farms

employees were "employed in

§ 207(a)(1).

case

Production

is

and

agriculture" when

they processed Vidalia onions grown by farmers other than Bland
Farms Production and Packing,

LLC.

The Court held a bench trial the week of

February 6,

The Court heard evidence from both sides and now,

with

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

in

52(a)(1),

2017.

accordance

makes

its

findings

of

fact

and

conclusions

of

law.

In

short,

finds that Bland Farms Production and Packing,
its

employees

overtime

in

violation

of

the

Court

LLC failed to pay

the

FLSA.

The

Court

awards back wages and a reduced amount of liquidated damages but

declines

to

Defendant

issue

an

Delbert

injunction.

Bland

is

The

not

Court

liable

also

in

finds

his

that

individual

capacity.
I.

Delbert

Bland

Bland

Farms

Delbert

Production

Bland

first field of

out

of

a

owns

began

Findings of Fact

Bland

and

growing

Farms,

LLC,

Packing,

onions

in

onions was only 5 acres.

carport.

Since

then,

Bland

which

the

Defendant

("Bland

LLC

owns

Farms").

early

And he

Farms

largest producer of sweet onions in the country,

Bland Farms

process and package
onion

His

sold that crop

has

become

the

selling around

2 million 40-pound boxes of Vidalia onions a year.
its operation,

1980s.

As part of

runs a packing shed where employees

onions grown by Bland

Farms and by other

farmers.

Not long after he began growing onions,
his

Delbert Bland had

first

Labor.

run-in

with

the

Department

of

The

DOL

questioned whether Bland Farms properly paid its packing-shed
employees.

In response to the DOL's probe,

Delbert Bland wrote

the DOL requesting guidance on when Bland Farms was and was not

required to pay overtime wages to its packing-shed employees.

A

DOL

official

agriculture
as

long as

replied,

stating

essentially

exemption would apply to
they were

that

the

FLSA's

the packing-shed employees

processing onions

grown by Bland

onions that Bland Farms purchased in the field,

Farms

or

so long as Bland

Farms purchased the entire field of onions.

In

was

2013,

the

improperly

wages.

The

Bland Farms'

DOL

began

denying

DOL

its

eventually

investigating

packing-shed

filed

this

practices violated the

2015,

Bland

employees

lawsuit

Farms

overtime

alleging

that

FLSA because it did not pay

its packing-shed workers overtime wages
2014,

whether

during the

2012,

2013,

and 2016 Vidalia onion seasons when those employees

processed onions grown by farmers other than Bland Farms.
A. Growing Onions

Farming Vidalia onions is a tedious job.
must prep and sow a seedbed.

First, a farmer

Then, once the onion plants in the

seedbed grow to roughly "the size of a No. 2 pencil," the farmer

will pull the plants out of the ground and replant them in
another

field,

where

they

plants are in the field,
with fertilizer,

and

let

them

dry

grow

to

maturity.

herbicides,

onions,

in the

the

and water.

1

Vidalia

onion

season

the

field.

typically

When it

farmer must undercut the

The

onions

removed from the field by hand and placed in bins.

September.

While

the farmer must routinely treat them

pesticides,

comes time to harvest the

onions

will

runs

are

then

During this

from mid-April

until

mid-

process,

the tops of the onions are clipped off.

then dried in mechanical

and

shipped.

From

dryers

start

to

The onions are

before they are

finish,

the

graded,

process

packed,

takes

roughly

eight months.
B. Contract

Growers

During the
seasons,
on

2012,

2013,

2014,

2015,

and 2016 Vidalia onion

Bland Farms processed onions in its packing shed grown

land that it owned and leased and onions grown on land owned

and leased by

other onion growers

contract

growers

Collins,

Morgan

Herndon,

include
Right,

("contract growers").

Brett

Jerry

and Ronnie McLeod.

Williams,

Pittman,

Ashley

Jamie

These

Day,

Mike

Beasley,

Bruce

The contract growers all contracted

to sell onions to Bland Farms, agreeing that they would grow the
onions,

which Bland Farms would later process and sell.

The

contract

seedbeds,

growers

were

the

onions,

transplanting

spraying

herbicides

planting

fertilizing

the

onions,

in

charge

of

preparing

the

and

irrigating the onions, and harvesting the onions.

seed,

Bland

fertilizer,

Farms

growers

would

and would

herbicide,

occasionally

often

onions out of the field.

advance

the

contract

help

pesticide,

provide

the

and

labor

contract

to

The contract

growers

cash.

But

including

labor
the

growers

And Bland Farms would,

onions,

pesticides,

growers paid all the expenses of growing the onions,
the

the

costs.

contract

haul

the

when necessary,

Bland

Farms

always

charged the contract growers

for any assistance

it

provided and

would recoup all cash advances when it sold the onions.

In

most

cases,

Bland

Farms

purchased

contract growers based on a pack-out rate,

money

how

a

contract

well

contract

would

his

onions

grower's

receive

grower
would

would
be

grower

received

graded.

onions

payment

not

only

for

Bland

for

those

payment

because

low-quality onions.

Thus,

it

is

for

Farms

example,

from

the

the

the

depended

if

70%

contract

onions.

difficult

Occasionally,

onions

meaning the amount of

graded marketable,

receive

discarded

from

the

The

of

contract

30%,

to

market

a

a

grower

remaining
find

on

which
for

Bland Farms purchased onions

based on an across-the-scales method,

meaning it paid a set rate

for all the onions regardless of how they graded.
The

risk

throughout

of

the

loss,

entire

moreover,

growing

was

on

the

growers

The

process.

contract

contract

growers

carried their own crop insurance to address the risk of weatheror

for

disease-related

the

noted,

onions

Bland

marketable

losses.

until

Farms

onions.

it

was
So

Bland

Farms

purchased

generally
the

took

them.

And

required

contract

no

growers

to

responsibility

even

pay

also

then,

for

as

only

assumed

the

Farm Production

and

risk that their onions would grade below marketable.
C. Omar Cruz's Input

Omar Cruz,

Chief Agronomist,

Bland

Farms'

Director of

is in charge of onion production and quality

control.

He

Farms

high-quality

has

provided

is

the

essentially

tasked

onions

contract

to

growers

with

ensuring

sell.

advice

Mr.

about

that

Cruz

how

Bland

therefore

to

best

grow

onions during the years they sold onions to Bland Farms.
Mr.

Cruz

to plant,

harvest

helped them choose what

times,

process.

Cruz's

suggested seed varieties

contract

growers

because

they

advice

as

Brett Williams

it,

contract

to apply,

throughout

typically

trusted

put

the

chemicals

and provided other advice

The

because,

for

tried

Mr.

suggested

the

to

Cruz's

growers

growing

follow

opinion

they "looked at

Mr.

and

Bland Farms

as the customer" and tried to grow onions that met Bland Farms'

standards.

advice,

But

they

were

not

to

and the contract growers made the

how they grew their onions.
Farms,

required

owned

questioned

the

during

follow

Mr.

Cruz's

final decisions about

The contract growers, and not Bland

onions.

Ashley

Day,

for

example,

was

trial about why he had the final say about

what type of seed to plant, how many onions to grow, and when to
harvest

his

onions.

And

he

responded

each

time,

"Because

they're my onions."

In

important

short,

input,

although

he

Mr.

did

not

Cruz

provided

control

the

the

growers

contract

with

growers'

operations: he could not require the contract growers to perform

any task or follow his

instructions.

Rather,

Mr.

Cruz made

suggestions to the farmers, which they typically followed.

But

he did this to ensure that Bland Farms would be able to purchase

the

number

of

quality

onions

that

it

needed,

not

to

protect

crops owned or grown by Bland Farms.
D. "Spot" Purchases

A

few

purchased

In 2012,

times

onions

during

from growers

relevant

other

years,

than

the

Bland

contract

Farms

growers.

Bland Farms purchased onions from Maurice Collins,

was

having trouble

not

need

more

finding a buyer.

onions

onions because Mr.

In 2013,

the

that

Collins,

year,

Although
it

purchased

a longtime friend,

Bland Farms purchased onions

Bland Farms
Mr.

who

did

Collins's

was "in a bind."

from Ashley Day because,

like Mr. Collins, Mr. Day was in a bind that year.2

Bland Farms

also purchased onions from R.T. Stanley because Mr. Stanley did
not have labor available to harvest a field of onions and Bland

Farms did,

so

it

seized

the opportunity

to

buy more

onions.

These purchases were not made because of production shortfalls,
and Bland Farms did not pay its packing-shed employees overtime
wages when they processed these onions.
E. 1985 Letters

In February 1985,

requesting

guidance

Delbert Bland wrote a letter to the DOL

about

when

Bland

packing-shed employees overtime wages.
Bland

noted

that

there

had

"been

a

Farms

to

In his letter,
question

2 Mr. Day was not a contract grower in 2013.
7

had

pay

its

Delbert

concerning

the

difference

to

buying

Delbert

to

in

pay

Agriculture

onions

in

the

[versus]

field or

Non-Agriculture

at

the

Bland wanted clarification about

its

packing-shed

employees

packing

whether

overtime

in

relation

shed . . . ."

Bland

Farms

had

when

the

wages

employees processed onions that Bland Farms purchased from other
growers.

The

After

next

month,

Alfred

Perry,

a

DOL

official,

responded.

briefly explaining the FLSA's agriculture exemption,

Mr.

Perry stated that

Where a farmer purchases a field of onions,

or other

crop, prior to harvest — and where this purchase is
clearly for whatever may come out of the field
(versus so much per bag packed) — we consider that
field to belong to the farmer who purchased it.
The
packing of these onions would be the same as if the
farmer had grown them.
This packing would still
constitute 'agriculture.'

On

the

other

hand

a

farmer/packer

might

offer

so

much per bag rather than an offer to purchase the
field.
It would make no difference if the "per bag'
offer was made at the field or at the shed.
These

bags
This

packed are the property of another grower.
would create a 'non-agriculture' packing shed

operation.

In other words, according to Mr. Perry, if Bland Farms bought an
entire

field

of

onions,

its

packing-shed

employees

would

be

exempt from the FLSA when they processed those onions.
F. Bland Farms'

In

Overtime Practices

accordance

with

its

interpretation

of

Mr.

Perry's

letter, Bland Farms chose not to pay its packing-shed employees

8

overtime wages when they processed onions grown by the contract
growers.

In

Bland

Farms'

onions that Bland Farms
by

Bland

operate

Farms.

this

The

way

view,

the

employees

grew or that came

belief

became

that

common

Bland

were

processing

from fields purchased

Farms

knowledge

was

among

permitted

to

decision-makers

in the company.

Since
decisions

wages.
[Bland

2012,
about

It has
Farms]

Troy
when

Bland,
to

pay

Bland's

packing-shed

always been Ttoy Bland's
purchase[d]

[Bland Farms]

Delbert

all

the

son,

employees

made

overtime

understanding that "if

onions

in

the

field,

can go to the agriculture exemption"

its packing-shed employees overtime wages.

operate like this, in Troy Bland's view,

has

then

and not pay

That Bland Farms may

has "just kind of been

general knowledge" around Bland Farms.
As

noted,

moreover,

Bland

Farms

growers based on pack-out rates.

often

Thus,

paid

the

contract

Bland Farms only paid

for the onions that were considered marketable and discarded the
onions

that

considered

overtime

did

not

itself

purposes.

affected how

meet

standard.

be

buying

entire

In

to

that

its

view,

the

Still,

fields

pack-out

Bland Farms paid the growers.

"just

a variable

rates

Farms]

tr[ies] to determine how much [the growers are]

field of onions."

for

only

According to Troy

a pack-out

paid for that

is

Farms

onions

Bland,

get

rate

of

Bland

in which

Bland Farms

[Bland

going to

purchased

entire

fields

onions,

from

the

contract

growers,

sold

and discarded the unmarketable onions.

of unpaid overtime wages for 2012,

2013,

the

marketable

The total amount

and 2014 Vidalia onion

seasons is $552,070.86.
G. Delbert Bland's

Involvement

Since Delbert Bland started growing onions in the 1980s,

he

has

been more interested in selling onions than producing them.

He

therefore

especially
handled

avoids

in the

employment

involvement

packing

shed.

matters

in

day-to-day

Since

for

the

2012,

operations,

Troy

Bland

shed,

packing

including

setting wages and deciding when to pay overtime wages.
Farms

also contracts with a staffing agency,

UBS,

has

Bland

which jointly

employs the packing-shed employees with Bland Farms.

During the relevant years,

manager,

Tifani Vazquez,

worked in the packing shed.

UBS's personnel

She helped manage

the

packing-shed employees, but only Bland Farms had the authority
to set and adjust wages.

When Ms. Vazquez needed permission to

adjust wages,

she

typically spoke with

either Troy Bland or

David Beecher,

another Bland Farms employee.

She did,

however,

speak with Delbert Bland on occasion about wage issues during
the relevant years.

In one instance,

Ms. Vazquez asked Delbert Bland to approve

a wage increase for an employee because she could not find Troy
Bland or Mr. Beecher.

The employee was threatening to quit and
10

Ms.

Vazquez needed someone to approve the wage increase quickly.

She

ran

into

situation,

Vazquez
Troy

agreed

sought

Bland

Bland

Delbert

approve

Troy

was

was

to

Bland's

in

present

Bland,

Delbert

for

who

the

approval

of

about

the

time,

Ms.

Another

a

wage

office.

conversation,

approved the wage increase.

learning

increase.

Bland's

the

after

increase

Although

Troy

Bland

while

Delbert

actually

Ms. Vazquez also approached Delbert

Bland about raising the wages of all the packing-shed employees.
In response,

however,

should talk to

Delbert Bland said that he and Ms. Vazquez

Troy Bland about

the

issue.

And

although

the

wages were ultimately increased, Delbert Bland did not make that
decision.
II.

Plaintiff argues

paying

the

the

contend

FLSA

Defendants

employees

violated the

overtime

liquidated damages,

that

under

Bland should not

of Law

FLSA by not

wages

when

the

onions by farmers other than Bland Farms.

It seeks back wages,

from

that

packing-shed

employees processed

Defendants

Conclusions

be

the

the

packing-shed

agriculture

and injunctive relief.
employees

exemption,

were

that

exempt

Delbert

held personally liable because he was

not

involved in the day-to-day operations of the packing shed, that

liquidated damages are inappropriate because Bland Farms made a

good-faith

effort

to

comply

with

the

FLSA,

and

that

an

injunction is inappropriate because nothing suggests that Bland
11

Farms will not comply with the FLSA following the Court's ruling
in

this

case.

A. The FLSA and the Agriculture Exemption

Under

the

FLSA,

employers

typically

must

pay

their

employees time and a half when the employees work more than 40
hours

in

however,

a

week.

does

agriculture."

purposes,

29

not

29

U.S.C.

apply

U.S.C.

includes,

§ 207(a)(1).

to

"any

requirement,

employed

Agriculture,

other things,

tillage of the soil, . . . cultivation,
of any agricultural

employee

§ 213(b) (12).

among

This

"the

for

in

FLSA

cultivation

growing,

and

and harvesting

or horticultural commodities . . . and any

practices . . . performed

as

an

incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations."

29

U.S.C.

by

a

farmer

or

on

a

farm

§ 203(f).

The definition of agriculture "has two distinct branches."
Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb,

(1949).

The

first

is

primary

337 U.S. 755,

agriculture,

which

762

includes

typical farming activities like the cultivation and tillage of
the soil.

See id.

Secondary agriculture, the second branch of

agriculture, is broader and includes "any practices, whether or
not

themselves

farming

practices,"

such

as

processing

crops,

that are performed by a farmer or on a farm and are incident to

or in conjunction with "such" farming operations.
63.

Id. at 762-

Secondary practices therefore "must relate to the farmer's
12

own

farming

others

operations

. . . ."

Mitchell

Inc. , 267

F.2d 286,

of

grown

crops

conjunction
farmers

.

290

by

.

."

not
v.

to

the

is

farming

operations

Wholesale

1959).

farmers

the

farming

Huntsville

(5th Cir.

other

with,

.

and

Thus,

Nurseries,

the processing

"incidental

operation

of

to,

of

or

the

in

other

Id.

It is undisputed that Bland Farms did not pay its packing-

shed employees overtime wages during the relevant time period,
even

when

contract

the

employees

growers.

were

The

processing

controversy

in

onions
this

grown

case

by

centers

the
on

whether the decision not to pay those employees overtime wages

was permissible under the FLSA.

Bland Farms contends that it

was because the packing-shed employees were engaged in secondary

agriculture.

But

that

is

true

only if Bland Farms

was

so

intimately involved in the contract growers' operations that it
should

be

words,

this case hinges on whether Bland Farms was engaged in

primary

considered

the

agriculture

operations.
processing

If
of

agriculture.

with

it

the

was,

Farms'

respect
then

contract

of

those

to
the

growers'

onions.

the

In

contract

packing-shed
onions

other

growers'
employees'

was

secondary

But if not, then the packing-shed employees were

not performing practices
Bland

farmer

farming

incident to or

operations

overtime compensation.
13

and

in conjunction with

thus

were

entitled

to

Providing input

eventually

buys

harvested

primary agriculture.
one

court,

however,

"completely

from the

and advice to growers

is

See Mitchell,
has

integrated,"

FLSA when

crops

held

one

insufficient

267

F.2d at

when

that

constitute

291.

At

least

operations

employees

may

be

secondary-agricultural

with respect to another farmer's products.
Poultry,

to

farming

farmer's

performing

from whom a business

are

exempt

practices

See Wirtz v. Tyson's

Inc., 355 F.2d 255, 259 (8th Cir. 1966).

In Mitchell, a nursery wholesaler sold nursery stock.
F.2d at 288 n.2.

267

It grew two-thirds of its nursery stock.

A

portion of the remaining one-third was grown by contract growers

but

processed

by

the

wholesaler's

contracts with the growers,

employees.

Under

its

the wholesaler purported to lease

the land that the plants were grown on, claimed ownership of the
plants,

and

agreed

to

make

cash

advances

Despite the language of the contract,

to

however,

the

growers.

the wholesaler

did not own or take responsibility for all of the plants; it did

not

pay

for

culls

or

for

plants

destroyed

before

harvest.

Rather, it paid only for plants that were deemed merchantable.
The DOL sued the wholesaler,

claiming it violated the

FLSA

by not paying overtime wages to the employees who processed the
nursery stock grown by the contract growers.

The wholesaler

argued that the agriculture exemption applied because it was the
farmer of the nursery stock grown by the contract growers.
14

The

court

rejected

wholesaler

did

other

argument,

"contribute

instances make

in

this

advances,

ways,

as

counsel

[did]

the

of

the

noted,

"[t]o

nursery

permit

purchaser

of

that

although

advice,

[did]

farm market,

the

bushes,

in

and

Id.

sort

at

of

291.

Indeed,

arrangement

to

the
some

[did]

assist

and not the wholesaler,

stock.

this

and

furnish a

growers," the contract growers,
farmers

holding

the

were the
the

be

court

called

farming . . . would be not to give a broad construction to the
statutory exemption but to do away with it altogether . . . ."
Id.

In Tyson's Poultry,
affirmed

a

district

on the other hand,
court's

ruling

the Eighth Circuit

that

the

agriculture

exemption applied to employees of Tyson's Poultry who processed
eggs produced by chickens grown by contractors because,

other

things,

integrated."

the

growers

and the

355

F.2d

256-58.

Mitchell because,
risk of loss,

at

company

The

among other things,

were

court

among

"completely

distinguished

Tyson's Poultry bore the

the contract growers were the agents of Tyson's

Poultry, Tyson's Poultry provided all the feed and medicine for
the chickens,

and Tyson's

Poultry owned the chickens

and the

eggs throughout the whole process.

Bland Farms argues that Omar Cruz was so involved in the

contract growers' operations that Bland Farms was the farmer of
the

contract

growers'

onions

and
15

thus

that

the

agriculture

exemption

applied

processed

those

Mitchell,

the

onions

they

the

onions.

grew.

Mr.

and

packing-shed

But

contract

growers,

much

growers

Although

contract

the

to

Cruz

could not

growers

recommendations.

And

here

Bland

Indeed,

decisions

about

when
the

the

were

Farms

would

the

Bland

Farms

did

of

the

contract

follow his

not

in

advice,

Mr.
the

own

Cruz's
onions

The contract growers owned the

questioned about
onions

the

disregard

they

growers

farmers

assisted

sometimes

when

contract

require them to

throughout the growing process.
onions.

like

employees

he

why

planted,

he made

one

the

contract

repeatedly responded, "Because they're my onions."

final
grower

The contract

growers carried the risk of loss and paid all costs involved in
growing the onions.

And although Bland Farms would sometimes

advance the contract growers cash and help with harvesting,

always

deducted

the

amounts

advanced

and

the

costs

of

it

its

services from what it paid the contract growers.

In sum, Bland Farms was not the farmer of the onions grown

by the contract growers.
was

"incidental

to,

or

Thus, the processing of those onions
in

conjunction

with,

the

farming

operations," Mitchell, 267 F.2d at 290, of the contract growers
and not Bland Farms.

not

apply

processing

to

the

those

The agriculture exemption therefore did

packing-shed

onions

because

employees

the

when

employees

they

were

performing secondary-agricultural practices at that time.
16

were

not

B. Back Wages

Because

employees

grown

Bland

overtime

by

the

Farms

wages

contract

failed

when

the

growers,

back wages under the FLSA.

to

pay

its

employees

the

processed

employees

See 29 U.S.C.

packing-shed

are

onions

entitled

§ 216(b).

to

The parties

have stipulated that the amount of unpaid overtime wages for the

2012, 2013, and 2014 Vidalia onion seasons totals $552,070.86.3
The

parties

have

also

stipulated that

the

Court's

ruling will

apply equally to the 2015 and 2016 seasons, though they have not

yet calculated the amounts owed for those years.
the

Court

2013,

and

awards

2014

2016 seasons.
2015

and

2016

$552,070.86

seasons,

in

overtime

plus overtime

wages

wages

Accordingly,
for

the

for the

2012,

2015 and

The parties must calculate the wages owed for the
seasons

and

jointly

submit

the

amounts

to

the

Court within 14 days from the date of this order.
C. Liquidated Damages

Under

liquidated
awarded.

the

FLSA,

damages
See

29

in

district

an

U.S.C.

amount
§ 216(b)

courts

equal

must

to

the

typically

actual

("Any employer .

.

award

damages

. shall be

liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of
their unpaid [wages] . . . and in an additional equal amount as
3 Bland Farms urges the Court to calculate damages on a week-by-week
basis. Thus, if the Court found that Bland Farms was not the farmer of only
some of the contract growers' onions, then it should award back wages only
for the weeks that the packing-shed employees processed onions grown by those

growers.

But because Bland Farms was not the farmer of any of those onions,

this analysis is unnecessary.
17

liquidated

damages.").

liquidated

damages

But

a

awarded

court

"if

may

the

reduce

the

employer

amount

shows

of

to

the

satisfaction of the court" that the employer acted in good faith
and

with

FLSA.

the

reasonable

29 U.S.C.

§ 260.

belief

that

it

was

complying

with

the

An employer who violates the FLSA bears

the burden of proving that it is entitled to a reduced amount of
damages
518

under

F.3d

show

1259,

that

faith."

§ 2 60.

Rodriguez

v.

(11th

Cir.

acted

it

1271

with

both

1985

letter

Farm

2008).

Stores
And

objective

Grocery,

the

and

Inc.,

"employer must

subjective

good

Id^

Relying

on

the

from

the

DOL

official,

Farms urges the Court to award no liquidated damages.
letter,

Bland

In his

the DOL official stated that when "a farmer purchases a

field of onions,

or other crop before harvest — and where this

purchase is clearly for whatever may come out of the field" the
DOL

considered

that

field

to

belong

to

that

farmer.

according to the official's interpretation of the law,

Thus,

a farmer

who purchases an entire field of onions need not pay overtime
wages to its employees who process those onions.
Bland Farms
the

reasonable

contends that it acted in good faith and with

belief

that

it was

in

compliance

with

the

FLSA

because it denied its packing-shed employees overtime wages only

when they processed onions grown in fields purchased by Bland
Farms

-

that

is

when

Bland

Farms
18

purchased

entire

fields

of

onions.

Bland Farms has continued to

received the 1985 letter.

making
Farms

overtime
that

Indeed,

decisions,

overtime

pay

it
was

operate this way since it

by the time Troy Bland began

was
not

common

knowledge

necessary

when

at

Bland

Bland

Farms

purchased entire fields of onions.

Plaintiff
marketable

argues

onions,

that

because

it did not

Bland

Farms

purchase entire

paid

fields

and thus did not comply with the 1985 letter.

for
of

only

onions

But Bland Farms

used the pack-out rates to calculate how much it would pay for
fields

of

onions,

not

to

determine

what

onions

Bland Farms took possession of all the onions,

it

purchased.

but it did not

pay for the onions that did not grade marketable because those
onions

were

virtually

worthless.

Bland

Farms

therefore

attempted to comply with the terms of the letter.
The

Court

intention

to

is

satisfied

ascertain

what

that

[the Act]

accordance with

it."

942

1566 (11th Cir.

F.2d 1562,

(citation omitted)

Bland

Dybach v.

requires

State of

1991)

Farms

Fla.

"had

an

and

to

Dep't

of

honest

act

in

Corr.,

(alteration in original)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Bland

Farms sought the counsel of the DOL about how to comply with the

law and followed the DOL's interpretation of the law.4

4

The Court

Plaintiff briefly argues that Bland Farms has taken inconsistent

positions about whether it
purchased fields of onions.
purchasing onions from the
attempting to both farm the

farmed the onions it processed or whether it
But these practices are not incompatible. When
contract growers, Bland Farms could have been
onions and purchase them in the field. Indeed,
19

is

thus persuaded that Bland Farms acted in good faith and with

the

reasonable

belief

from the

date

the date

Plaintiff

The

it

that

it

received the

Court,

filed this

however,

was

in

letter

compliance

from the

with

DOL

the

official

FLSA
until

lawsuit.

is

unconvinced

that

Bland

Farms

continued to reasonably rely on the letter after Plaintiff filed
suit.

By that

time,

it should have been clear to Bland Farms

that the DOL no longer held the opinion expressed in the 1985
letter.

When

Plaintiff

filed

suit,

Bland

Farms

should

known - whether it agreed with the DOL or not - that
believed that

Bland

Farms

owed overtime wages

to

its

have

the

DOL

employees

when the employees processed onions grown by other growers, even

if Bland Farms purchased entire fields of onions.

to say,
that

however,

it

was

This is not

that Bland Farms did not continue to believe

in

compliance

with

law.

As

shown

by

this

litigation, Bland Farms has continued to assert - regardless of
the

DOL's

position

about

purchasing

fields

of onions - that

Bland Farms was actually the farmer of the onions its employees

processed.

Thus, the Court holds here only that, for purposes

of § 260, Bland Farms could no longer rely on the 1985 letter.

during the relevant years, the growers grew a set number of acres for Bland
Farms and Bland Farms purchased all those onions (that graded marketable).

Thus, although the Court rejects Bland Farms' position that it farmed those
onions, Bland Farms has not taken inconsistent positions by arguing that it
both farmed the onions and purchased entire fields of onions.
20

Because

reasonable
Court

Bland

belief

Farms

it

its

discretion

liquidated damages
Vidalia

damages
unpaid
after

Plaintiff

in

Farms

$94,888.69,
wages
had

that

filed

good

faith

compliance
to

must

onion seasons,

totaling
overtime

Bland

was

in

that

exercises

and 2014

acted

with

reduce

pay.

and

which

this

during

lawsuit.

2012,

the
the

The

of

2013,

pay liquidated

represents

accumulated

the

amount

the

Bland Farms must

the

law,

the

the

For

with

amount
2014

Court

of

season

awards

the

full amount of liquidated damages for the 2015 and 2016 seasons.
D. Delbert Bland's Individual Liability

An

individual

cannot

be

held

liable

under

the

FLSA

he is an employer within the meaning of the statute.
Sanford-Orlando

Cir.

2008) .

person

Club,

Inc.,

515

F.3d

1150,

Perez v.
1160

(11th

employer under the FLSA is defined as "any

directly

in

§ 203(d).
if he

An

acting

employer

Kennel

unless

relation

or

indirectly

to

an

in

the

interest

employee . . . ."

29

of

an

U.S.C.

An individual will fall within this definition only

is "involved in the day-to-day operation

or ha[s]

some

direct responsibility for the supervision of the employee[s]."
Perez,

515

F.3d

insufficient

at

1160.

to establish

And

"unexercised

authority

liability as an employer."

Id.

is
at

1161.

Plaintiff

capacity,

has

claiming

sued

he

is

Delbert

the
21

Bland

employer

in

of

his

the

individual

packing-shed

employees.

But

the

Court

disagrees.

Delbert

Bland

was

not

involved in the day-to-day operations of the packing shed during

the relevant years.
onions.

He focused his attention instead on selling

And since 2012,

matters

for

the

authority to

packing

approve

Troy Bland has

handled all

shed.

Bland

wage

Delbert

increases,

and

he

did

did

employment

possess

exercise

the

that

authority once during the relevant seasons.

But he did so only

because

needed

it

was

approve a wage

an

emergency:

Ms.

Vazquez

increase for an employee before

someone

that employee

walked off the job and could not find anyone else to help.
fact,

when

increasing

Ms.

Vazquez

the wages

later

for

approached

all

of the

to

Delbert

Bland

packing-shed

In

about

employees,

Delbert Bland instructed her to speak with Troy Bland.
Because

Delbert

Bland

was

not

involved

in

the

day-to-day

operations of the packing shed, he was not an employer under the
FLSA.

The

Farms'

Court therefore will

not hold him liable

for Bland

FLSA violations.

E. Injunctive Relief

District courts may,
of the FLSA.

held

29 U.S.C.

repeatedly

unenforceable."

that

"for cause shown/' enjoin violations
§ 217.

But the Eleventh Circuit "has

'obey

the

Fla. Ass'n of Rehab.

law'

injunctions

Facilities,

Inc.

are

v. State

of Fla. Dep't of Health and Rehab. Servs. , 225 F.3d 1208, 1222

(11th Cir.

2000) .

An injunction prohibiting an employer from
22

future

if

"the

previous

conduct of the employer and the dependability of

[its]

promises

for

FLSA

future

violations

compliance"

prevent

future

1279-81

(5th

Cir.

paying

wages

Atlas

and

show that

the

Roofing

injunction

(holding

employer

that

made

an

only

See Dunlop v.

1975)

because

back

appropriate

violations.

appropriate

receipts,

is

he

he

F.2d

an

112,

F.2d 1278,

injunction

owed,

to

necessary to

524

intentionally

admitted

377

Davis,

that

misrepresentations

Mfg.,

is

tried

to

falsified

the

114-17

DOL);
(5th

was
avoid

payment

Wirtz

Cir.

v.

1967)

(holding that an injunction was appropriate because the employer
continued to violate the

lawsuits

and

after

FLSA after multiple

stipulating

that

it

investigations and

would

comply

with

the

law) .

Plaintiff asks the Court to

FLSA

violations.

Plaintiff

come

forward

any

with

fact

to

the

Although

that

Bland

Farms

packing-shed

it

is

true

argues

evidence

voluntarily comply with the
the

enjoin Bland Farms

that

[law]

has

Bland

suggests

Farms

that

has

"not

[it]

will

going forward" and points to

continued to

employees

that

that

from future

during

Bland

Farms

deny

Vidalia

has

not

overtime wages

onion

season.

produced

any

evidence that it will comply with the law once it receives this
Court's ruling in this case, nothing suggests that it will not.
That

Bland

Farms

has

refused

to

pay

overtime

wages

to

the

packing-shed employees throughout this litigation does not mean
23

that it will continue that practice after receiving this Court's

adverse

ruling.

Rather,

Bland

Farms'

continued

denial

of

overtime wages pay is consistent with the position it has taken
throughout
because

this

Bland

growers.

litigation:

Farms

And

farmed

although

that
the

the

overtime

onions

Court

has

pay

grown

was

not

the

contract

by

rejected

Bland

due

Farms'

theory, it "was not far fetched" and was legally sound enough to
survive summary judgment.

Supp. 101,

See Wirtz v.

106 (S.D. Fla. 1965)

Hartley's,

Inc., 245 F.

(declining to enjoin an employer

that asserted a plausible argument and noting that the employer
did

not

commit

"a

clear

violation

of

the

Act

without

valid

excuse or explanation").

Because
continue

ruling,

to

.the

Court

violate

is

the

unpersuaded

FLSA

following

that
the

Bland

Farms

issuance

an injunction is not proper in this case.

of

will
this

The Court

thus denies Plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction.
F. Spot Purchases

As

noted,

relevant seasons.

Bland

Farms

made

spot

purchases

during

the

At summary judgment, Bland Farms argued that

the agriculture exemption continued to apply when the packingshed employees processed these onions.

But because Bland Farms

did not assert this argument in its post-trial brief, the Court
assumes that it has abandoned its previous position.

Still, for

the sake of completeness, the Court briefly addresses the issue.
24

The
issue,

Court

but

otherwise

to

other

by

lose

Inc. ,
&

assuming

aware

the

production

necessarily
Growers,

not

circuits

covered

cover

Jackson

is

its
167

Perkins

the

of

have

any

binding

recognized

agriculture

shortfalls,

protection.
F.3d

Co.,

355,

312

Eleventh

F.2d

that

See

Circuit would

a

business

Adkins

(7th

48,

when

exemption makes

the

357

authority

v.

Cir.

51

(2d

on

business

purchases

does

not

Mid-American

1999);

Wirtz

Cir.

1963).

such

follow

this

an

v.

Even

approach,

Troy Bland admitted at trial that Bland Farms purchased Maurice
Collins's

trouble

and

Ashley

finding

Day's

buyers

onions

and R.T.

because

Stanley's

they

onions

were

because

Stanley did not have enough labor to harvest the onions.
Farms

did

shortfalls.

not

make

these

purchases

because

having

of

Mr.

Bland

production

The agriculture exemption therefore did not apply

when the packing-shed workers were processing these onions.
Ill.

Conclusion

In sum, the Court finds that Defendant Bland Farms Packing
and Production, LLC violated the FLSA by not paying its packing-

shed employees overtime wages when they processed onions grown

by farmers other than Bland Farms.

The Court therefore awards

back wages totaling $552,070.86 for the 2012,
Vidalia onion seasons,
Vidalia onion seasons.

reduce

the

amount

2013,

and 2014

plus back wages for the 2015 and 2016
The Court exercises

liquidated
25

damages

its discretion

awarded

and

to

awards

$94,888.69
and

is

2016

not

for

the

seasons.

liable

for

2014
The

season
Court

Bland

and

finds

Farms'

a

full

that

FLSA

amount

Defendant

violation.

for

the

Delbert

And

the

2015
Bland

Court

denies Plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction.
Furthermore,

the

parties

are

ORDERED

to

jointly

calculate

the amount of back wages owed for the 2015 and 2016 seasons and,
within 14 days from the date of this order,

provide that amount

to

so,

the

Court.

Once

the

parties

have

done

the

Court

will

enter the appropriate judgment.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this 4^?/

day of July,

2017.

J. RANDAjyHALL, tlHIEF JUDGE

UNIT&DySTATES DISTRICT COURT
?RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

26