This case involves Mexican H-2A guest workers employed by Bland Farms in Georgia onion operations from 2001 to 2006 who sued under the FLSA for unpaid wages and under state law for breach of contract and violation of Georgia’s Right to Work Law, claiming the employer failed to timely reimburse inbound transportation, visa, and recruiting expenses deemed primarily for the employer’s benefit and to pay AEWR wages as promised in DOL clearance orders. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the FLSA, contract, and right-to-work claims, while plaintiffs moved to strike supporting affidavits. The court examined whether third-party fees charged by ILMC, MOA, and CSI were reimbursable under Arriaga precedent and 20 C.F.R. § 655.102, whether those entities acted as agents binding the employer, and whether the clearance order created enforceable contractual obligations for weekly pay and expense reimbursement.
This case arose from a breach of contract claim filed by Rayonier Wood Products in Georgia state court against ScanWare and its owner FinScan over a lumber grading system that allegedly failed to meet performance standards, with the contract specifying exclusive jurisdiction in Emanuel County courts. After ScanWare filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Oregon, FinScan removed the action to the Georgia bankruptcy court, which granted Rayonier's motion to remand and abstain under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(c)(1) and 1452(b) without first transferring venue. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by prioritizing remand based on the forum selection clause, comity, and equitable factors over competing venue transfer arguments, and that the home court was not required to decide abstention issues first.
In this case, fourteen Mexican farm workers employed under the H-2A program sued Shannon Produce Farm under the Fair Labor Standards Act's anti-retaliation provision, claiming the farm refused to rehire them for the 2006-2008 seasons in retaliation for their participation in a prior FLSA lawsuit. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the FLSA does not apply extraterritorially to foreign workers denied rehire abroad. The court denied the motion, holding that the anti-retaliation claim is viable because it seeks to protect enforcement of U.S. workplace standards rather than regulate foreign employment conditions, and the workers' prior U.S. employment qualified them for protection under the Act.
This case involves H-2A guestworkers who sued their employer, Bland Farms, under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to pay minimum wages. The plaintiffs requested a protective order to prevent the defendants from contacting them, potential opt-in plaintiffs, and their families, citing alleged intimidation through visits and calls in Mexico. The court granted a limited protective order prohibiting in-person and telephone communications about the lawsuit but permitting written communications with advance notice to plaintiffs' counsel and formal discovery. The reasoning focused on the risk of coercion due to the employment relationship while preserving the defendants' ability to defend the case and investigate facts.
This case concerns Meier Jason Brown's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief after his federal conviction and death sentence for the robbery and murder of a postal employee. The district court outlines the governing standards for resolving such motions, including the need for plenary review, the procedural default doctrine requiring a showing of cause and prejudice (or actual innocence) for claims not raised at trial or on direct appeal, and the requirements for obtaining discovery or an evidentiary hearing. Applying these rules, the court addresses Brown's various claims, such as alleged missing transcripts and ineffective assistance, and denies relief on procedurally barred or meritless grounds without holding an evidentiary hearing.
In Brown v. Chertoff, plaintiff Peter Brown sued the Department of Homeland Security alleging retaliation under Title VII for his prior EEO complaints and other protected activity that led to his termination from a Customs and Border Protection laboratory position. The remaining claim centered on whether his firing for insubordination and related conduct was pretextual. After discovery disputes involving destroyed notes from an employee relations specialist, the court addressed Brown's motion for spoliation sanctions. The court granted the sanctions motion in part, finding the destruction warranted a rebuttable adverse inference instruction to the jury that the notes contained evidence of pretext, but denied harsher sanctions because Brown could alleviate prejudice through other testimony. It also denied the government's renewed summary judgment motion without prejudice, allowing renewal within 15 days after accepting Brown's pretext showing for purposes of opposing summary judgment.