Comite De Apoyo A Los Trabajadores Agricolas v. Solis
933 F. Supp. 2d 700
E.D. Pa.2013Background
- Plaintiffs challenge the DOL’s 2008 Wage Rule governing H-2B labor certifications under the APA.
- H-2B program permits temporary, unskilled, nonagricultural foreign workers when US workers are unavailable and wages won’t be adversely affected.
- DHS and DOL jointly administer H-2B; DOL labor certifications advise DHS on visa grants.
- The 2008 Wage Rule used a four-tier skill-level method to determine prevailing wages, later found invalid procedurally by a court.
- Judge Poliak initially invalidated the 2008 Wage Rule’s ‘at the skill level’ language and remanded for proper rulemaking but did not vacate the rule.
- Since 2011, DOL attempted a new rule (2011 Wage Rule) but funding riders delayed enforcement; the court later vacated the 2008 Rule and remanded for compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2008 Wage Rule should be vacated. | CATA/PCUN argue rule is procedurally and substantively invalid. | DOL seeks remand without vacatur as a remedy. | Vacatur of the 2008 Wage Rule is granted. |
| Whether the rulemaking violations render the 2008 Wage Rule void under APA §706(2)(D). | Procedural invalidity invalidates the rule. | Remand is sufficient to cure defects without vacatur. | Procedural invalidity supports vacatur. |
| Whether the 2008 Wage Rule exceeded DOL's statutory authority under APA §706(2)(C). | Rule conflicts with INA provisions restricting adverse effects on US workers. | Rule was within authority to issue wages for prevailing determinations. | Rule exceeded authority; vacated. |
| Whether the 2008 Wage Rule is arbitrary or capricious under §706(2)(A). | Rule misaligns with statutory language and market-based wages. | The rule was a reasonable interpretation of authority. | Rule deemed arbitrary and capricious; vacated. |
| Appropriate remedy for an invalid rule under APA. | Remand without vacatur preserves the invalid rule. | Remand without vacatur should be allowed in some circuits. | Vacatur and remand to DOL; invalid rule revoked. |
Key Cases Cited
- NVE, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 436 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2006) (APA review focuses on decision-making process)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (policy requires rational decision-making)
- Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (U.S. 2000) (unambiguous statutory language controls; agency may not exceed)
- Allied-Signal Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (remand without vacatur weighing deficiencies vs. disruption)
- Council Tree Communications, Inc. v. F.C.C., 619 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2010) (remand/remand-without-vacatur; framework for remedy discussed)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 605 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1979) (statutory interpretation governs agency action)
- Sekula v. F.D.I.C., 39 F.3d 448 (3d Cir. 1994) (standard of review for regulatory interpretation)
- Diersen v. Chicago Car Exchange, 110 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 1997) (arbitrary/capricious standard applied to agency action)
- K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281 (U.S. 1988) (statutory interpretation governs regulatory deference)