Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 242
three areas pursuant to the 2017 H-2A contract. The court determined that the plaintiffs
offered evidence of a common policy from upper management that directed
“progressive disciplinary action due to not following the supervisor’s instructions, rather
than low production.” Id. at *16. However, the court found that implementation of the
discretionary policy would predominate in the litigation due to the various orchards and
conflicting worker experiences. Id. Plaintiffs also sought certification of a class of farm
workers subject to visa withholding claims brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1592(a). The court
again determined that plaintiffs’ proposed class failed to meet the predominance
requirement, as individual issues on how and when workers obtained permits varied
substantially, leading to individual inquiries. For these reasons, the court denied
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of Plaintiffs’ TVPA claims.
E.
Summary Judgment Rulings On Class Claims
Courts in 2022 also made class-wide rulings on the merits in several labor case. The
most significant is Novoa, et al. v. GEO Group, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25045 (C.D.
Cal. Jan. 25, 2022), where the plaintiffs, a group of immigrants, filed a class action
alleging that defendant violated the TVPA and California Labor Law by using detainees
for labor to maximize its own profits and by paying only $1 per day to each detainee.
The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant withheld necessary care in order to
ensure its labor supply, and therefore the labor was forced to obtain basic necessities.
The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, and requested that the court find the
defendant liable for wage theft, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition. In turn, the
defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and a motion to decertify the
previously certified class action. The court denied the motion for decertification, and
granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment with regard to their claims that the
defendant violated California Labor Law. The court ruled that the defendant’s control
over the plaintiffs’ wages, hours, and working conditions was sufficient to establish it as
an employer, and since it was undisputed that the defendant only paid $1 per day, the
plaintiffs established a Labor Code violation. The court, however, concluded that there
were genuine issues of material fact as to the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment and forced
labor claims. The court ruled the defendant’s affirmative defenses of derivative
sovereign immunity, preemption, and lack of standing to seek injunctive relief should be
dismissed because: (i) the defendant had discretion to pay the plaintiffs more than $1
per day; (ii) the defendant failed to show why compliance with both state and federal
regulations was impossible; and (iii) the plaintiffs had standing to seek injunctive relief.
Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for
summary judgment and denied the defendant’s motions for decertification and for
summary judgment.
The case subsequently resulted in a jury verdict in October of 2022 of $17.3 million in
favor of the class of detainees. The court denied the defendant’s post-trial motion for
judgment as a matter of law.
241
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
