Bacilio Ruiz Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc.
835 F.3d 1125
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mercer Canyons participated in the 2013 H-2A program to hire up to 44 temporary foreign vineyard workers at $12/hour; it had regulatory duties to positively recruit domestic workers and to hire qualified domestic applicants through June 15, 2013.
- Mercer maintained a call-back/employment information list; nearly 200 people entered it during the recruitment period, but Mercer hired only 22 domestic workers and 19 H-2A foreign workers (arriving May 2, 2013).
- Plaintiffs (Ruiz Torres and Amador) allege Mercer had a common policy/practice of failing to inform domestic job-seekers of available H-2A jobs paying $12/hour (AWPA §§ 1831(e), 1821(f); Washington CPA) and also failed to pay domestic workers $12/hour for qualifying H-2A tasks (AWPA and Washington wage law).
- District court certified an "Inaccurate Information" class (~600 members) and an "Equal Pay" subclass (~200 members) representing domestic workers who sought employment or performed vineyard work during the H-2A contract period and were not referred by WorkSource.
- Mercer appealed class certification arguing lack of commonality, lack of predominance, proof deficiencies for aggregate wage claims, and atypicality of the named plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit affirmed certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AWPA/CPA create a classwide disclosure duty about H-2A jobs | Mercer’s omission of H-2A job existence/terms is a false or misleading omission under AWPA §§1831(e)/1821(f) and supports class liability | AWPA does not impose a disclosure duty regarding H-2A positions; merits question precludes common issue | Court: Existence of a disclosure duty is a common legal question appropriate for class certification review (did not decide merits) |
| Commonality/predominance for CPA informational-injury theory | Injury can be informational (deprived opportunity to pursue $12/hr H-2A work); common questions (policy of nondisclosure) drive liability for class | Injury is individualized (must show eligibility for H-2A job); presence of uninjured members defeats predominance | Court: Informational injury is a viable, largely common theory; individualized damage issues do not defeat predominance; class may be refined later |
| Aggregate proof of underpayment for Equal Pay subclass | Aggregate payroll/accounting records can show total wages and hours to prove underpayment in the aggregate (permissible method) | Records are inaccurate; individualized defenses and proofs (timecards, manual pay entries) preclude aggregate liability proof | Court: Aggregate method permissible; proof weaknesses go to merits/summary judgment, not certification; predominance satisfied |
| Typicality of named plaintiffs | Named plaintiffs’ experiences (sought work/performed vineyard tasks and alleged nondisclosure/underpayment) are representative of class | Differences (seasonal vs migrant status, hiring via contractor, Amador didn’t sign call-back list) make representatives atypical | Court: Variations do not defeat typicality; claims reasonably coextensive with class; certification appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requires a common question apt to generate common answers)
- Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592 (1982) (context for H-2A/foreign worker recruitment obligations)
- Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (permissibility of aggregate/representative proof on liability issues)
- Jiminez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) (proving existence of informal/unofficial policies can drive classwide resolution)
- Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for class certification)
- Leyva v. Medline Indus., Inc., 716 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2013) (individualized damages calculations don’t necessarily defeat certification)
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (overbreadth/predominance concerns when many class members were never exposed to the challenged conduct)