Hispanic Affairs Project v. Perez
141 F. Supp. 3d 60
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (an advocacy org, a former U.S. sheepherder, and a current H-2A sheepherder) sued to enjoin DOL from certifying new H-2A sheepherder visas at the prevailing wage rate set under the 2011 Sheepherder TEGL, arguing the wage methodology was illegal.
- The 2011 TEGLs for open-range herders were previously held procedurally invalid by the D.C. Circuit (Mendoza), and this Court entered a Remedial Order: the invalid TEGLs would remain in effect only until a new rule (promulgated after notice-and-comment) took effect.
- DOL published a new final rule on October 16, 2015 (effective November 16, 2015) that replaces the 2011 TEGLs and raises the monthly prevailing wage via a phased methodology.
- Plaintiffs filed this challenge in August 2015, several months after publication of the NPRM and less than three months before the final rule’s effective date; they sought a preliminary injunction halting certifications at the challenged wage.
- The Court acknowledged DOL’s concessions that the 2011 TEGL methodology produced stagnant wages and that DOL relied on limited survey data, but denied the preliminary injunction because plaintiffs failed to satisfy the Winter factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of challenging DOL’s application of the 2011 Sheepherder TEGL | DOL failed to apply the TEGL’s required annual, statistically valid state SWA surveys and thus set illegal wage floors | DOL admits methodological problems but argues remedial rulemaking and the upcoming 2015 Rule address defects; also raises standing/redressability concerns | Court found plaintiffs showed deficiencies in DOL practice but declined injunctive relief on other grounds; did not grant preliminary relief |
| Whether plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent injunction | Ongoing payment of illegally low wages and loss of opportunity to obtain sheepherder jobs constitute irreparable economic harm | Delay in bringing suit and availability of subsequent backpay litigation make harms compensable; injunction would not necessarily redress plaintiffs | Court held plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm—delay undermined urgency and injunction would likely not redress plaintiffs’ economic claims |
| Whether balance of equities favors injunction (impact on third parties) | Any disruption is short and can be remedied (e.g., temporary emergency rule); harms to employers/farmers are speculative | An injunction would effectively halt H-2A certifications, harming employers, communities, and foreign workers; issuing an emergency rule is not instantaneous | Court held equities favor defendants because injunction would disrupt the industry and impose real harms on third parties |
| Whether injunction is in the public interest given remedial order and imminent final rule | Public interest favors correcting illegal methodology now to protect workers | Public interest favors preserving status quo agreed to in Remedial Order until the 2015 Rule (notice-and-comment) takes effect; injunction would undo that plan | Court held the public interest disfavors injunction because it would abruptly undo the consent Remedial Order and risk disruption before the new rule’s effective date |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (TEGLs subject to APA notice-and-comment; directed remand for remedy).
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary remedy).
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor preliminary injunction standard).
- Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015) (citation of Winter standard in injunction context).
- Frederick Cty. Fruit Growers Ass’n v. Martin, 968 F.2d 1265 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (backpay/remedial analysis where agency rule later invalidated).
- Mexichem Specialty Resins, Inc. v. EPA, 787 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (high standard for irreparable injury).
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (irreparable harm standards).
- Abdullah v. Obama, 753 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (movant must satisfy all four factors for injunction).