393 F.Supp.3d 93
D.D.C.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (four seasonal U.S. agricultural workers and the Farm Labor Organizing Committee) challenge the Department of Labor’s H-2A certification practice: they allege the agency routinely issues certifications allowing employers to pay less than the “prevailing hourly wage” as defined by the regulations and as calculated by the OES.
- Plaintiffs also challenged five specific 2018 H-2A certifications that they say paid below the prevailing wage and caused lost job opportunities and depressed wages.
- Defendants (Secretary of Labor/Department of Labor) moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (arguing mootness of the five certifications and ripeness of the policy claim), or alternatively to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois or stay proceedings pending contemplated rulemaking.
- The court found the five specific certification claims moot because they expired and plaintiffs delayed filing and sought no preliminary relief, foreclosing the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception.
- The court held the plaintiffs’ facial/policy challenge to the Department’s practice ripe and justiciable (purely legal question, concrete ongoing injury, and no adequate basis to delay review for speculative future rulemaking).
- The court denied transfer to the Northern District of Illinois (venue improper there and public/private interests favor D.C.) and denied a stay pending rulemaking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of challenges to five specific 2018 certifications | The certifications violated the Offered Wage Rate and caused lost jobs/wages; claims fall within the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception | Certifications expired; claims therefore moot; plaintiffs delayed and sought no expedited relief so exception doesn't apply | Dismissed as moot — plaintiffs’ wrongful-certification claims are moot because they delayed and didn't seek timely relief |
| Ripeness of nationwide policy/practice challenge (agency allegedly defers to SWA "no finding" and pays below prevailing wage) | Policy is ongoing and causes concrete injury (depressed wages, lost opportunities); legal question fit for review now | Prudentially unripe because pending/possible Department rulemaking may change the wage methodology | Denied dismissal — policy/practice claims are ripe and justiciable; court will decide them now |
| Motion to transfer to Northern District of Illinois | N/A (plaintiffs chose D.C.) | Relevant documents and processing center are in Chicago; convenience favors transfer | Denied — venue in Northern District of Illinois not shown proper and factors weigh against transfer |
| Motion to stay pending rulemaking | N/A | Stay warranted because pending rulemaking could alter or moot the case | Denied — speculative rulemaking does not justify a stay; balance of equities favors proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires plaintiff to bear burden of establishing jurisdiction)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review doctrine requirements)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (ripeness: fitness and hardship framework)
- Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002 (plaintiff must attempt timely relief to invoke repetition exception)
- Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015 (possibility of future amendment does not bar current judicial review)