46 F.4th 636
7th Cir.2022Background
- Signet Builders, a national construction subcontractor, hired Jose Ageo Luna Vanegas on an H‑2A visa to build livestock confinement structures on farms in Wisconsin and Indiana in 2019.
- Luna Vanegas alleges he routinely worked >40 hours/week and was not paid FLSA overtime (29 U.S.C. § 207(a)).
- Signet moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting the FLSA agricultural exemption (29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(12)) because the work was performed “on a farm.”
- The district court granted dismissal, finding the complaint unambiguously showed the agricultural exemption applied.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo, treating well‑pleaded allegations as true, and examined whether dismissal was appropriate given the fact‑intensive DOL regulatory test for secondary agriculture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of FLSA agricultural exemption to Signet’s construction work | Luna Vanegas: construction of livestock enclosures is not "agriculture"; he was misclassified and is owed overtime | Signet: building livestock enclosures is analogous to erecting silos/granaries and thus falls within the secondary agricultural exemption | Court: unresolved on pleadings — exemption is fact‑intensive under DOL regs; dismissal improper; Signet bears burden to prove exemption |
| Procedural propriety of raising exemption on Rule 12(b)(6) motion | Luna Vanegas: affirmative defenses must be pleaded in an answer; complaint need not anticipate them | Signet: moved under 12(b)(6) to dismiss on exemption grounds | Court: affirmative defenses are typically raised in an answer; rarely will a complaint establish an impenetrable affirmative defense so as to permit 12(b)(6) dismissal |
| Preclusive effect of H‑2A visa approval | Luna Vanegas: H‑2A certification is broader than FLSA definition and does not control the FLSA exemption analysis | Signet: DOL’s H‑2A approval shows the work qualifies as agricultural | Court: H‑2A criteria are broader; visa approval does not automatically resolve FLSA exemption issue |
| Forfeiture of arguments on appeal | Luna Vanegas: he consistently argued misclassification below and may refine arguments on appeal | Signet: some appellate arguments were more developed than in district court | Court: no forfeiture — party may refine arguments on appeal if core claim was presented below |
Key Cases Cited
- Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2009) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal inappropriate where complaint does not plainly admit an affirmative defense)
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff may plead himself out of court only in rare circumstances)
- Holly Farms Corp. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1996) (line between incidental farm practices and non‑agricultural activity is imprecise; employer status relevant)
- Maneja v. Waialua Agric. Co., 349 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1955) (must examine all facts to decide if an operation is incident to farming)
- Mitchell v. Budd, 350 U.S. 473 (U.S. 1956) (certain processing operations are not agricultural work)
- Hodgson v. Idaho Trout Processors Co., 497 F.2d 58 (9th Cir. 1974) (processing plants separate from farms; workers not agricultural)
- Vazquez v. Indiana Univ. Health, Inc., 40 F.4th 582 (7th Cir. 2022) (affirmative defenses must be pleaded in the answer)
- U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Indiana Gas Co., Inc., 350 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2003) (complaint need not anticipate or negate affirmative defenses)
- Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010) (plausibility standard for sufficient pleading)
- Fox v. Hayes, 600 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2010) (parties may refine arguments on appeal if the core was presented below)
Result: Reversed dismissal and remanded for further fact development and proceedings consistent with the DOL’s fact‑intensive totality‑of‑circumstances test for the secondary agricultural exemption.