148 F. Supp. 3d 361
D.N.J.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (CATA, PCUN, NFWC, and individual Rivera) challenge provisions of DOL’s 2015 Wage Rule for the H-2B program governing how the National Prevailing Wage Center (NPWC) sets prevailing wages (20 C.F.R. §§ 655.10(b)(1)-(2), 655.10(f)(1)(i)-(iii), 655.10(f)(4)).
- They seek vacatur and remand of those provisions under the Administrative Procedure Act; defendants are DOL, DHS, and agency officials.
- H-2B program employers must obtain prevailing wage determinations (PWDs); the Rule specifies reliance on CBAs, BLS OES data, or employer surveys meeting §655.10(f) criteria and methodology/attestation requirements.
- Plaintiffs submitted affidavits from Rivera and organizational leaders (CATA, NFWC, PCUN) and one member (Ismael Perez) asserting competitive harm and past wage depression from H-2B workers.
- The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment under Rule 56 and resolved only the jurisdictional standing question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for individual Rivera to seek prospective relief | Rivera says competition with H-2B workers would reduce his wages and job prospects if he sought other landscaping jobs | Defendants: Rivera has no concrete or imminent plan to seek such jobs; claimed harm is speculative | No standing – Rivera’s intent is “some day” hypothetical, insufficiently concrete or imminent; summary judgment for defendants |
| Associational standing for CATA and NFWC | Associations claim they and their members are harmed by depressed wages and seek to vindicate members’ interests | Defendants: organizations show only generalized interest and litigation expenditures, and affidavits fail to identify any particular member harmed by the challenged provisions | No standing – organizations failed to show injury in their own right or identify any specific member with standing; summary judgment for defendants |
| PCUN standing via member Ismael Perez (prospective relief/redressability) | Perez attests past lost contracts and lower wages due to competition with H-2B workers; PCUN relies on his affidavit for associational standing | Defendants: Perez’s harm is past and caused by competitors’ past actions under prior rules; Perez does not intend to hire H-2B workers or seek PWDs under the challenged provisions, so no imminent injury or traceable causation/redressability | No standing – Perez’s injuries are historical and not tied imminently to the 2015 Wage Rule; lack of traceable, redressable future injury means PCUN lacks associational standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Lujan authority reiterated in summary judgment context, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff bears burden to prove standing at each stage)
- Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (associational standing requires identification of at least one member who has standing)
- Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26 (1976) (generalized institutional interests are insufficient for standing)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdictional limits and standing doctrines are threshold requirements)
- FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) (plaintiff must have standing as to each challenged provision)
- Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injunctive relief requires continuing, present adverse effects)
- Blunt v. Lower Merion School District, 767 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2014) (litigation expenditures alone do not confer standing)