Bobadilla-German et al v. Bear Creek Orchards, Inc.

Filing 377

Opinion and Order. The court grants partial summary judgment for Defendant on the late paychecks issue in Claim one. Plaintiffs' Motion 246 for Partial Summary Judgment (Claim One) is denied as to late paychecks. Ruling is reserved on the A WPA claim for all alleged recruitment violations (no written disclosures) and for allegedly omitting the EIN and employer address from the pay stub. Ruling is reversed on Plaintiffs' Motion 266 is for Partial Summary Judgment (Claim Two) and Defendant's Motion 241 for Partial Summary Judgment (Claim Two). Plaintiffs' Motion 192 for Partial Summary Judgment (Claim Three) is denied. Defendant's Motion 174 for Partial Summary Judgment (Claim Three) is granted as to pa ycheck advances, and otherwise denied. Plaintiffs' Motion 286 for Partial Summary Judgment (Claim Four) is denied. Defendant's Motion 185 for Partial Summary Judgment (Claim Four) is granted. Ruling is reserved on Plaintiffs' Motion 361 to supplement the Record. (Please access document by number hyperlink for complete review and details of Opinion and Order.) Signed on 6/25/2009 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (dkj)

IN THE UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT FOR THE D I S T R I C T OF OREGON E L I A S BOBADILLA-GERMAN, CV 0 7 - 3 0 5 8 - P A OPZHZOH AND ORDBR

et al" Plaintiffs,

v.
BEAR CREEK ORCHARDS, I N C . ,

(Class Action)

Defendant.
PABHER, J u d g e .

Plaintiffs bring this action for alleged violations of the M i g r a n t a n d S e a s o n a l A g r i c u l t u r a l W o r k e r P r o t e c t i o n A c t , 29 U.S.C.
§§

1 8 0 1 - 1 8 7 2 ("AWPA"), a n d O r e g o n wage a n d h o u r l a w s .

P e n d i n g b e f o r e t h e c o u r t a r e s e v e n m o t i o n s f o r p a r t i a l summary jUdgment, and a motion to supplement the record. Within the

briefing, Defendant also asserts "motions to strike" which the court will treat as evidentiary objections.

//// ////

1 - O P I N I O N AND ORDER

A.

C l a i m One (AWPA)

W h e t h e r w r i t t e n d i s c l o s u r e s h a d t o b e made, when, a n d t o who, 2 9 U . S . C . advisement.
§

1821(a)

i

29 C . F . R .

§

500.75, is taken under

The c o u r t a l s o t a k e s u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t w h e t h e r

D e f e n d a n t v i o l a t e d AWPA b y n o t i n c l u d i n g , o n e a c h p a y s t u b , t h e e m p l o y e r ' s f u l l a d d r e s s a n d E m p l o y e r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Number ("EINU). 29 U . S . C .
§

1 8 2 1 (d)

i

29 C . F . R .

§

500.80.

The c o u r t g r a n t s summary j u d g m e n t f o r D e f e n d a n t o n t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t D e f e n d a n t v i o l a t e d AWPA b y n o t p a y i n g w o r k e r s final paychecks on the l a s t day that the employee actually worked a shift. I t i s n o t p r a c t i c a l f o r t h i s e m p l o y e r t o p a y s o many Congress

workers in the manner that P l a i n t i f f s demand.

understood t h i s and wisely did not compel such an undertaking. S e e 29 U . S . C .
§

1822(a)
i

( e m p l o y e r " s h a l l p a y t h e w a g e s owed t o 29 C . F . R .
§

s u c h w o r k e r when d u e " )

500.91 (employer "must pay

t h e w a g e s o w e d s u c h w o r k e r when d u e " ) . P a y i n g a l l w a g e s owed o n t h e m o r n i n g , a n d w i t h i n 24 h o u r s , a f t e r the l a s t s h i f t worked i s sufficient to satisfy the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f AWPA a n d i t s i m p l e m e n t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s .
B. C l a i m Two ( M i n i m u m Wage - - O r e g o n L a w )

I n a l l r e l e v a n t y e a r s , a s i n g l e d e d u c t i o n w a s made c o v e r i n g housing (during the peach harvest), and housing plus meals (during the pear harvest). Defendant did not offer a meals-only At oral argument, the parties

plan or separate the deductions. 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

stipulated t h a t t h e a m o u n t o f t h e d e d u c t i o n ( f i v e d o l l a r s i n 2005, and s e v e n d o l l a r s i n 2006) d i d n o t e x c e e d t h e f a i r m a r k e t value of the goods and services furnished. The p a r t i e s w e r e g i v e n l e a v e t o f i l e s u p p l e m e n t a l b r i e f s o n w h e t h e r , u n d e r O r e g o n l a w , t h e h o u s i n g a l l o w a n c e was p r o p e r l y c r e d i t e d a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e minimum w a g e r e q u i r e m e n t . 6 5 3 . 0 3 5 ( 1 } ; OAR 8 3 9 - 0 2 0 - 0 0 2 5 ( 7 ) . S e e ORS

F o r now, r u l i n g i s r e s e r v e d o n

t h e c r o s s - m o t i o n s f o r summary j U d g m e n t o n C l a i m Two.
C. Claim Three ( U n a u t h o r i z e d D e d u c t i o n s from Wages)

Summary j U d g m e n t i s g r a n t e d f o r D e f e n d a n t o n t h e p a y c h e c k advances portion of this claim. Some P l a i n t i f f s now c l a i m t h e y

believed these paYments were i n addition to t h e i r hourly wage, or a loan to be repaid incrementally over the course of the harvest, not an advance against the f i r s t paycheck of the season. r e c o r d p r o v i d e s no o b j e c t i v e b a s i s f o r s u c h a n a s s u m p t i o n . The Nor

h a s t h e c o u r t s e e n a n y c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s e v i d e n c e t h a t t h i s was P l a i n t i f f s ' understanding a t t h e time t h e paYments were made. R e c o g n i z i n g t h a t m i g r a n t a g r i c u l t u r a l w o r k e r s who h a d j u s t traveled to Oregon from Arizona might need help with subsistence u n t i l the f i r s t paycheck, Defendant advanced wages to employees before those wages were earned. The f i r s t r e g u l a r p a y c h e c k t h e n

covered the balance due the employee. T h i s was n o t a " d e d u c t i o n " f r o m w a g e s c o v e r e d b y ORS 652.610{3). R a t h e r , P l a i n t i f f s r e c e i v e d some w a g e s i n a d v a n c e o f

3 - O P I N I O N AND ORDER

the d a t e d u e .

A ruling in favor of Plaintiffs on this issue

would discourage employers from offering such assistance, and h a r m t h e v e r y p e o p l e t h e l a w was i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t . Plaintiffs

point to no evidence that the Oregon Legislature ever intended such a result, nor do the facts in the record support t h i s subclaim. w i t h t h a t e x c e p t i o n , t h e c r o s s - m o t i o n s f o r summary j U d g m e n t on the Third Claim are denied. W h e t h e r c l a s s members s i g n e d

written authorizations to have deductions taken for housing c o s t s , ORS 6 5 2 . 6 1 0 { 3 } ( b ) , i s a f a c t u a l d i s p u t e t h a t w i l l b e resolved at trial. It is not necessary for the court to

d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a n y c l a s s member s i g n e d a n a u t h o r i z a t i o n allowing Defendant to deduct for meals. Defendant has conceded

that meals were provided along with housing, at no additional cost.
D.

A s i n g l e a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s a l l t h a t was r e q u i r e d .
Claħm P o u r

P l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a t u n d e r O r e g o n l a w , when t h e employment of a seasonal farmworker i s terminated by the employer, either for lack of work or otherwise, the employee i s e n t i t l e d t o b e p a i d o n t h e same d a y o f t h e l a s t s h i f t a c t u a l l y worked. I t is undisputed that Defendant's practice, during the

p e r i o d a t i s s u e , was t o i s s u e t h e f i n a l p a y c h e c k o n t h e m o r n i n g after the l a s t s h i f t actually worked.

1// /
4 - OPINION AND ORDER

At a l l r e l e v a n t t i m e s , ORS 6 5 2 . 1 4 5 p r o v i d e d i n r e l e v a n t p a r t that: N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g ORS 6 5 2 . 1 4 0 , i f a n e m p l o y e e h a s worked for an employer as a seasonal farmworker, w h e n e v e r t h e emploYment t e r m i n a t e s , a l l w a g e s e a r n e d a n d u n p a i d become d u e a n d p a y a b l e immediately. * * * * A t a l l r e l e v a n t t i m e s , OAR 8 3 9 - 0 0 1 - 0 4 4 0 p r o v i d e d t h a t : 1} When a s e a s o n a l f a r m w o r k e r o r s e a s o n a l r e f o r e s t a t i o n w o r k e r t e r m i n a t e s emploYment b e c a u s e of discharge or mutual consent, a l l wages earned a n d u n p a i d become d u e a n d p a y a b l e o n t h e l a s t d a y the employee works.

****
The s t a t u t e a n d r e g u l a t i o n s s p e a k i n t h e s i n g u l a r : " w o r k e r . " In view of the number of workers involved here, i t i s impractical for a large employer such as Defendant to pay wages and c o m p l i c a t e d b o n u s e s owed o n t h e s a m e d a y a s t h e l a s t s h i f t actually worked. Until that shift has been completed, Defendant

c a n n o t e v e n a c c u r a t e l y a s c e r t a i n w h a t a m o u n t s a r e owed t o e a c h employee. Nor would i t be practical for the workers to vacate

the employee housing a f t e r the l a s t day worked. Defendant's practice of paying employees a l l amounts due the employee on the morning following the l a s t s h i f t actually worked does not violate the requirements of Oregon law. D e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o summary j u d g m e n t o n t h i s c l a i m .

//I/

5 - OPINION AND ORDER

E.

Plaintiffs· Motion to Supplement the Record

The c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e p a r t i e s l e a v e t o f i l e s u p p l e m e n t a l briefing on this issue. RUling on the motion i s reserved.
Conclusion

The c o u r t g r a n t s p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t f o r D e f e n d a n t o n t h e l a t e paychecks i s s u e i n Claim One. Plaintiffs' Motion

( # 2 4 6 ) f o r P a r t i a l Summary J u d g m e n t ( C l a i m One) i s d e n i e d a s t o

late paychecks.

R u l i n g i s r e s e r v e d o n t h e AWPA c l a i m f o r a l l e g e d .

r e c r u i t m e n t v i o l a t i o n s (no w r i t t e n d i s c l o s u r e s ) a n d f o r a l l e g e d l y o m i t t i n g t h e EIN a n d e m p l o y e r a d d r e s s f r o m t h e p a y s t u b . R U l i n g i s r e s e r v e d o n P l a i n t i f f s ' M o t i o n (# 266) f o r P a r t i a l Summary J u d g m e n t ( C l a i m Two) a n d D e f e n d a n t ' s M o t i o n ( # 2 4 1 ) f o r P a r t i a l Summary J u d g m e n t ( C l a i m Two) . P l a i n t i f f s ' M o t i o n ( # 1 9 2 ) f o r P a r t i a l Summary J u d g m e n t (Claim Three) i s denied. Defendant's Motion (# 174) for P a r t i a l

Summary J U d g m e n t ( C l a i m T h r e e ) i s g r a n t e d a s t o p a y c h e c k advances, and otherwise denied. P l a i n t i f f s ' M o t i o n ( # 2 8 6 ) f o r P a r t i a l Summary J u d g m e n t (Claim Four) i s denied. Defendant's Motion (# 185) for P a r t i a l

Summary J u d g m e n t ( C l a i m F o u r ) i s g r a n t e d .

//// //// //// ////
6 - OPINION AND ORDER

RUling i s r e s e r v e d o n P l a i n t i f f s ' M o t i o n (# 3 6 1 ) t o Supplement the Record. I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED t h i s

~

/'

day of June, 2009.

OWEN M. PANNER UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T JUDGE

7 - O P I N I O N .AND ORDER