Arredondo v. Delano Farms Co.
922 F. Supp. 2d 1071
E.D. Cal.2013Background
- Certified class of field workers employed by T & R Bangi’s Agricultural Services and Cal-Pacific who worked for Delano Farms from 2005–2009.
- Bench trial conducted Jan 15–30, 2013 on AWPA and California law employment status.
- Court held Contractor was independent contractor, but Delano Farms was a joint employer of plaintiffs under AWPA and California law.
- Delano Farms structured its business to outsource many farming functions while retaining some agricultural control and decision-making.
- Contractor provided thousands of field laborers; supervision and hiring were largely through Contractor, not Delano Farms.
- California Wage Order 14 and related statutes govern plaintiffs’ wage claims; AWPA governs federal wage-related questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are plaintiffs employed by Delano Farms under AWPA via joint employment with Contractor? | Plaintiffs contend Delano Farms is a joint employer under AWPA due to economic dependence and control. | Delano Farms argues Contractor is an independent contractor and that joint employment does not exist under AWPA. | Delano Farms and Contractor jointly employed plaintiffs under AWPA. |
| Does the AWPA permit joint employment analysis between employer and farm labor contractor? | AWPA incorporates broad FLSA-style joint employment concepts to protect workers. | AT law requires separate consideration of independent contractor vs. joint-employer, not automatic joint status. | Yes; AWPA applies joint employment principles to determine coverage of workers. |
| Did Delano Farms exercise sufficient regulatory or non-regulatory control to classify Contractor as an independent contractor or joint employer? | Economic dependence and control by Delano Farms indicate joint employment. | Contractor retained control; Delano Farms’ involvement was limited to quality control and agricultural decisions. | Court found joint employment for AWPA purposes; Contractor not economically dependent on Delano Farms as an independent contractor. |
| Under California Wage Order 14, did Delano Farms employ plaintiffs via contract with Contractor? | Wage Order 14 definitions support finding an employer-employee relationship with Delano Farms. | Wage Order 14 requires direct control or suffer-or-permit to work; Contractor structure limits employer liability for wages. | Delano Farms employed plaintiffs under Wage Order 14. |
| Do regulatory and non-regulatory factors together support joint employment under AWPA in this multi-party contractor arrangement? | Multiple factors show economic dependence and control by Delano Farms over workers. | Factors fail to show substantial dependence; Contractor’s independent operation and management mitigate joint status. | Totality of factors supports a joint-employer finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Assocs., Inc., 603 F.2d 748 (9th Cir. 1979) (broad FLSA-style employer/employee framework for independence)
- Torres-Lopez v. May, 111 F.3d 633 (9th Cir. 1997) (joint employment factors; harvest scheduling and supervision)
- Bonnette v. Cal. Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (four Bonnette factors related to wage, control, and records)
- Moreau v. Air France, 356 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2003) (qualitative control vs. direct supervision; significant but not dispositive)
- Zhao v. Bebe Stores, Inc., 247 F.Supp.2d 1154 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (integration of control and joint employment under FLSA/AWPA context)
- Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010) (Cal. wage order definitions and 'suffer or permit' vs. control over wages)
- Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1947) (master test for economic realities in employment relationships)