Familias Unidas Por La Justicia AFL-CIO v. United States Department of Labor
2:24-cv-00637
W.D. Wash.Oct 2, 2024Background
- Familias Unidas Por La Justicia, a labor organization, sued the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) challenging how the Washington Employment Security Division (ESD) conducts prevailing wage surveys under the H-2A foreign labor program.
- Plaintiff alleges both ESD's interpretation of DOL's “25% rule” and its use of a "capture-recapture" methodology to estimate agricultural worker numbers violate federal regulations and harm their members.
- Defendants (DOL and Acting Secretary Julie Su) moved to dismiss, arguing ESD is a necessary (required) party under Rule 19 since it controls key decisions at issue.
- The court's task was to determine: (1) whether ESD is a required party for complete relief and (2) whether joining ESD to the case is feasible.
- Past case precedent in this District had found ESD to be a necessary party in similar circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is ESD a required party under Rule 19(a)? | DOL has enough authority over ESD that relief against DOL alone suffices; ESD bound by DOL's decisions via funding and regulations. | ESD, as a state agency, acts independently in key respects; court can't give complete relief without ESD because DOL doesn't control ESD's methodology or implementation. | ESD is a required party; DOL lacks full control over ESD's actions challenged here. |
| Is joinder of ESD feasible? | ESD has sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, so joinder not feasible. | Joinder is feasible; ESD has previously been joined in similar cases. | Joinder is feasible; no evidence ESD's sovereign immunity would bar joinder at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.E.O.C. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2005) (sets three-part test for required party analysis under Rule 19)
- E.E.O.C. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 610 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (no precise formula for Rule 19(a) determinations; facts specific)
- Alto v. Black, 738 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2013) (party not necessary where agency has full authority and absent party is bound to follow)
- Paiute-Shoshone Indians of Bishop Cmty. of Bishop Colony, Cal. v. City of Los Angeles, 637 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2011) (restates Rule 19(a) required party standard)