Adia v. Grandeur Management, Inc.
933 F.3d 89
| 2d Cir. | 2019Background
- Noel P. Adia, a Filipino national, entered the U.S. on an H-2B temporary guest-worker visa and was recruited to work for Grandeur Management and its manager Raja I. Younas.
- Defendants promised to sponsor/transfer his visa and assured him he could lawfully remain in the U.S.; they later told him they could withdraw sponsorship if he left or caused trouble.
- Adia was assigned to work in New York hotels, regularly worked over 40 hours per week, and was not paid overtime.
- After learning his visa was not properly filed, Adia alleged defendants had induced reliance on them and used the threat of sponsorship withdrawal (and consequent deportation) to coerce him to work and accept lower pay.
- Adia sued under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) for forced labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589) and human trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 1590), the Alien Tort Statute, and New York overtime law; the district court dismissed the TVPA claims and the ATS claim; Adia appealed only the TVPA dismissal.
- The Second Circuit held Adia plausibly pleaded TVPA forced-labor and trafficking claims and vacated the dismissal as to those claims, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether threats to withdraw visa sponsorship (exposing plaintiff to deportation) can constitute "abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process" under § 1589(a)(3) | Younas’s statements that he would cancel sponsorship if Adia left or complained amounted to threatened abuse of legal process coercing labor | Statements were not threats of legal coercion and plaintiff’s fear was merely subjective | Court: Such threats plausibly constitute abuse/threatened abuse of law or legal process under § 1589(a)(3) when viewed in context |
| Whether threats of deportation or sponsorship withdrawal can amount to "serious harm" or a scheme to compel labor under § 1589(a)(4) | The sponsors’ conduct and statements were a scheme to cause Adia to fear deportation and to continue working | Defendants argued the allegations are insufficient to show a scheme causing serious harm | Court: Allegations plausibly show a scheme and plausible "serious harm" (deportation) compelling continued labor |
| Whether recruiting a worker already in the U.S. can ground a § 1590 trafficking claim | Recruiting Adia to perform forced labor by promising sponsorship and then coercing him through threats satisfies § 1590 | District court thought recruitment must involve bringing someone into the U.S. or from abroad | Court: No requirement that recruitment occur from outside the U.S.; recruiting an existing resident can support § 1590 liability |
| Whether a corporate employer (Grandeur) can be liable under the TVPA | Adia treated Grandeur as jointly liable for sponsoring, recruiting, and coercing him | District court held (erroneously) that corporate defendants could not be liable under the TVPA | Court: District court erred; corporate liability under the TVPA is not foreclosed and was conceded by defendants on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988) (threatening an immigrant with deportation can constitute legal coercion)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (context-specific plausibility inquiry for pleadings)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (Rule 8(a)(2) requires only a short, plain statement)
- United States v. Calimlim, 538 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2008) (threats tied to immigration status can constitute abuse of legal process)
- United States v. Kalu, 791 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2015) (threats of deportation can be "serious harm")
- United States v. Dann, 652 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (scheme to cause fear of deportation supports forced-labor theory)
- United States v. Callahan, 801 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 2015) (statutes apply to domestic as well as foreign-born victims)
- Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard for assuming facts true on Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 566 U.S. 449 (2012) (distinguishing corporate-liability analysis under a different statute)