101 F. Supp. 3d 1192
S.D. Ala.2015Background
- Two plaintiffs are H-2B migrant workers who processed oysters for the defendants between 2008–2014; they allege FLSA, AWPA, and breach-of-contract claims in an amended complaint.
- Counts I and V: FLSA claims (not challenged here); Counts II and VI: AWPA claims alleging plaintiffs are migrant agricultural workers; Counts III and IV: breach-of-contract claims under Alabama law (one against defendants, one as third-party beneficiary of defendants’ contract with DOL).
- Defendants moved to dismiss all claims except the FLSA counts; the Court considered briefs and supplemental filings and took the motion under submission.
- Central legal question: whether oyster-related work constitutes "agricultural employment" under AWPA’s third definition (covering handling/processing of "agricultural or horticultural commodity in its unmanufactured state").
- Contract claims turn on (a) whether an employment contract exists under Alabama law between H-2B workers and their employer based on Form 9142 and Appendix B.1, and (b) whether the employer’s certifications to DOL create an enforceable contract (and provide consideration) as to third-party beneficiaries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether oyster processing is "agricultural employment" under AWPA §1802(3) | Oysters are "agricultural commodities": produced by nature, enhanced by labor, require human intervention; OWPA terms (e.g., "seeds"/"soil") can map to oyster cultivation | Oysters are sea-based, not land-based agricultural commodities; statutory text and ordinary meaning of "agriculture" refer to land-based cultivation | Oysters are not "agricultural commodities" under AWPA; AWPA does not cover these plaintiffs — Counts II and VI dismissed |
| Whether statutory definitions/legislative history require treating marine products as "agricultural" | Congress has defined "agricultural commodity" to include aquatic life in some statutes; AWPA is remedial and should be construed broadly | Occasional statutory inclusion of aquatic life elsewhere does not show AWPA intended to cover marine products; legislative history shows focus on land-based agriculture and forestry | Court rejects importation of other statutes’ definitions and finds no legislative intent to include marine products under AWPA |
| Whether plaintiffs can state a breach-of-contract claim under Alabama law against employer (Count III) | Form 9142 and Appendix B.1 terms, along with applicable H-2B regulations, constitute contractual terms between plaintiffs and defendants | No common-law employment contract exists for H-2B workers; regulators’ forms do not create state-law contracts | Court denies motion to dismiss Count III — plaintiffs may proceed with Alabama breach claim against employer |
| Whether plaintiffs may enforce as third-party beneficiaries an alleged contract between defendants and DOL (Count IV) | Appendix B.1 certification promised prevailing wage to DOL and conferred direct benefit to plaintiffs | Employer’s certification to pay prevailing wage is merely a promise to do what federal law already requires; therefore no additional consideration — no enforceable contract under Alabama law | Court grants motion to dismiss Count IV for failure to plead an enforceable contract supported by consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Morante-Navarro v. T & Y Pine Straw, 350 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2003) (interpreting AWPA’s third definition and analyzing what qualifies as an agricultural commodity)
- Bracamontes v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 840 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1988) (recognizing AWPA coverage for certain off-farm processing activities)
- Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1987) (discussing scope of AWPA and legislative intent regarding coverage)
- Caro-Galvan v. Curtis Richardson, Inc., 993 F.2d 1500 (11th Cir. 1993) (noting AWPA is remedial but must be read within statutory limits)
- Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (deference to congressional line-drawing and incremental legislative choices)