Bojorquez-Moreno v. Shores & Ruark Seafood Co.
92 F. Supp. 3d 459
E.D. Va.2015Background
- Five Mexican nationals came to Virginia under H-2B visas to shuck oysters for Shores & Ruark Seafood Co., Urbanna Seafood Co., and Rufus H. Ruark, Jr. (collectively S & R).
- Plaintiffs sued alleging: FLSA minimum wage violations (Count I); violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) (Count II); breach of employment contract under state law (Count III); and third‑party beneficiary breach of contract (Count IV).
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).
- Plaintiffs conceded they would not seek FLSA relief for violations before September 30, 2011, an allegation not pled in the complaint.
- Central legal disputes: (1) whether oyster shucking by H‑2B workers falls within AWPA’s definition of "agricultural employment," and (2) whether H‑2B labor certifications/ETA forms create privately enforceable employment contracts or third‑party beneficiary rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of FLSA claim (statute of limitations) | Seek unpaid wages/liquidated damages within 2–3 year limits; later clarified no recovery before 9/30/2011 | Motion to dismiss portions barred by statute of limitations | Court granted dismissal in part because Plaintiffs’ time limitation was not pled in the complaint |
| AWPA coverage (is oyster shucking "agricultural employment"?) | AWPA’s third definition and case law (Morante) cover processing/handling and could include seafood; H‑2B status doesn't automatically exclude AWPA coverage | AWPA targets traditional agriculture; H‑2B is nonagricultural; oyster shucking is not within AWPA’s ordinary meaning or history | Court held AWPA does not cover oyster shucking or these H‑2B workers; Count II dismissed |
| State breach of contract based on H‑2B labor certifications | Labor certifications and DOL commitments become terms of employment contract | H‑2B regulations do not make labor certifications the work contract; DOL enforcement is administrative and not a private cause of action | Court dismissed Count III for failure to plead a cognizable contract; leave granted to amend as to a written contract claimed discovered in discovery |
| Third‑party beneficiary claim to enforce H‑2B certifications | ETA filings are contractual statements of employment terms and create third‑party beneficiary rights in workers | Even if a government contract existed, plaintiffs are incidental beneficiaries and cannot privately enforce DOL obligations | Court dismissed Count IV; plaintiffs not intended beneficiaries and cannot bootstrap private enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Burbach Broad. Co. v. Elkins Radio Corp., 278 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2002) (Rule 12(c) standard parallels Rule 12(b)(6))
- Walker v. Kelly, 589 F.3d 127 (4th Cir. 2009) (pleading standards on judgment on the pleadings)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1988) (FLSA ordinary violations governed by two‑year statute; willfulness extends to three years)
- Morante‑Navarro v. T & Y Pine Straw, Inc., 350 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2003) (interpretation of AWPA’s scope regarding commodities produced by natural processes)
- Bracamontes v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 840 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1988) (AWPA’s third definition expands coverage by activity and location)
- Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1987) (legislative purpose of AWPA to cover downstream processing activities)
- Salazar‑Calderon v. Presidio Valley Farmers Ass’n, 765 F.2d 1334 (5th Cir. 1985) (historical cases treating clearance orders in earlier H‑2 context)
- Nieto‑Santos v. Fletcher Farms, 743 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1984) (no private cause of action to enforce H‑2 obligations)