Transportation Fees reimbursement case
The case discusses transportation fees that the workers incurred during their process to obtain their H2A visa and concluded that the Growers were not obligated under the FLSA to reimburse transportation and visa costs because such expenses were not primarily for the benefit of the employer as defined by the FLSA and Department of Labor ("DOL") regulations. Because the Growers had not authorized the referral fees and lacked awareness or control of that practice, the court held that they should not be responsible for reimbursing the fees. As for the contract claim, the court held that the Growers did not breach the contract with the Farmworkers because it found that the agreement clearly and unambiguously intended to reference Monterrey, Mexico, and not the home villages of the Farmworkers, as the point from which the Growers would provide transportation costs.
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division.
"Plaintiffs have filed suit under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("AWPA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-72., the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq, and the minimum wage provisions of the Florida Constitution. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached the terms of their employment contracts by: (1) requiring Plaintiffs to kick back their supplemental wages (Doc. #101, p. 22); (2) by automatically deducting an hour from each worker's recorded work time during the 2007-08 and 2008-09 harvests id. at 18; and (3) by failing to reimburse Plaintiffs for their inbound and outbound transportation, subsistence, and other costs associated with obtaining their visas."
VICTOR RIVERA RIVERA, et. al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
PERI & SONS FARMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Both the State and Federal regulations must be considered when determining the reimbursement rights of tempopary workers. This case explains how both peices of legislation are important under the H2A program and also talks about the statute of limitations allowed for workers to bring their claims forward.
United States District Court, D. Colorado.
This case talks about violations to workers that arrived under the H2A program and their rights: "Employers participating in the program must, among other things: (i) provide the employee with housing; (ii) provide employees with three meals per day or cooking and kitchen facilities that allow the workers to prepare their own means; (iii) provide transportation to and from the job location, as well as transportation between the housing site and worksite; (iv) guarantee the employee a specified number of hours of work during the contract period, calculated according to a particular formula; (v) pay the employees a specified wage at least twice monthly; and (vi) provide the employee a copy of any employment contract in a language understood by the employee, among many other requirements. 20 C.F.R. § 655.122(c)-(q)."
United States Court of Appeals,
The term “moral turpitude” is not defined by statute. However, we have observed that it involves “[a]n act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.”
United States Court of Appeals,
Petition granted; remanded.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Petition granted; remanded.
