286 P.3d 46
Wash.2012Background
- This case presents three certified questions from the Ninth Circuit about the Washington FLCA, RCW 19.30.170(2).
- District court awarded $500 per plaintiff per violation as statutory damages under the FLCA, total $1,857,000.
- Workers sued Global Horizons and Growers for FLCA violations including disclosure failures and wage/pay statement issues.
- District court relied on Six (6) Mexican Workers factors to size damages, and rejected causation-only limits.
- Ninth Circuit asked to interpret whether damages must be $500 per plaintiff per violation, whether that fixed award may violate due process/public policy, and standing for aggrieved parties.
- Court adopts that a court awarding statutory damages must award $500 per plaintiff per violation; leaves public policy/due process to Ninth Circuit; and leaves standing issue to Ninth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must statutory damages be $500 per plaintiff per violation | Workers advocate fixed $500 per plaintiff per violation | Growers advocate discretion up to a ceiling of $500 | Yes; damages must be $500 per plaintiff per violation |
| Does fixed $500 violate due process or public policy | Fixed amount furthers remedial goals | Fixed amount is potentially punitive and arbitrary | No; no state/public policy or due process violation identified; BMW-like scrutiny deferred to Ninth Circuit |
| Can damages be awarded to persons not shown to be aggrieved | Aggrieved broadens standing to those within intended protection | Aggrieved must be shown to be harmed | Ninth Circuit to decide standing question; Washington Supreme Court interpretation deferred |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarez v. Longboy, 697 F.2d 1333 (9th Cir. 1983) (discretion to award less than fixed amount when no actual damages)
- Six (6) Mexican Workers, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) (factors for determining deterrence/compensation in FLCRA-era damages)
- Williams, 251 U.S. 63 (Supreme Court 1920) (due process review of statutory penalties; public policy deference to legislature)
- BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (Supreme Court 1996) (three-factor framework for reviewing punitive-type awards)
- Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (Supreme Court 2003) (punitive-damages proportionality concerns guidance)
- WWJ Corp., 138 Wn.2d 595 (Wash. 1999) (whether BMW applies to statutory penalties under WA law)