Medrano, et al. v. D'arrigo Bros. Co. of California: Agricultural Workers Obtain First Victory in Class Action Suit for Unpaid Wages

IMMIGRANTS & EMPLOYMENT

Immigrants' Employment Rights and Remedies

MEDRANO, ET AL. V. D'ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF CALIFORNIA: AGRICULTURAL WORKERS OBTAIN FIRST VICTORY IN CLASS ACTION SUIT FOR UNPAID WAGES
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 15, No. 1, Feb. 28, 2001

In a case of first impression, a U.S. district court in northern California has denied the defendant's motion to dismiss and allowed the worker plaintiffs to continue with their class action lawsuit demanding they be paid wages they allege are owed to them. The court held that the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act of 1983 (AWPA) incorporates the rights set forth in state wage and hour laws.

The plaintiffs in the case are agricultural workers in Monterey County, California. They allege that their employer has not accurately recorded or compensated them for all the hours they have worked dating back to 1996, including "compulsory travel time" when the defendant employer requires all its workers to report to a particular parking lot to be transported to and from work on buses owned and operated by the employer. The workers also allege that they have not been paid for the time they are required to perform warm-up exercises, and for the time they are required to wait for their foreman to finish his or her administrative duties at the end of the workday before being transported back to the parking lot. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit pursuant to the AWPA, the California Labor Code, and the California Business and Professional Code. They also filed a breach of contract claim.

The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed from federal court because the AWPA does not require employers to pay workers for "compulsory travel time." In its denial of the motion to dismiss, the court stated that Congress's intent is clear from the AWPA statute itself and that the AWPA requires agricultural employers to pay its employees "the wages owed . . . when due." The court went on to hold that the employer's obligations could come from various sources of law, including state law. It found that the plaintiffs had stated a claim under the AWPA, since California law requires that agricultural workers be paid for compulsory travel time. See Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575 (2000).

In moving to dismiss, the defendant asserted that the applicable statute of limitations period was two years and that therefore the plaintiffs should be barred from pursuing relief for claims dating back to 1996. However, the court stated that the AWPA is a remedial statute that should be construed broadly due to its humanitarian purpose. Given that the AWPA does not contain a statute of limitations and that agricultural and migrant workers move often from state to state, the court held that the proper statute of limitations was three years for all the causes of action based on the state law claims filed by the workers, except for the claim that the defendants breached an oral contract, which is subject to a two-year statute of limitations under state law. Accordingly, the court held that the plaintiffs could proceed with all their claims.

Medrano, et al. v. D'Arrigo Bros. Co. of California, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18501 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2000).