Perez v. Bland Farms Production & Packing, LLC
6:14-cv-00053
S.D. Ga.Jul 31, 2017Background
- Bland Farms Production & Packing, LLC (Bland Farms) runs a packing shed processing Vidalia onions grown both by Bland and by independent contract growers; dispute covers 2012–2016 seasons.
- Contract growers planted, cultivated, harvested, paid all growing costs, carried crop insurance, and retained risk of loss; Bland Farms sometimes advised growers but could not compel them and did not own the crop until purchase.
- Bland Farms paid contract growers mainly on pack-out rates (payment only for marketable onions) and sometimes made spot purchases; Bland deducted advances and charges for services from grower payments.
- In 1985 a Department of Labor (DOL) official advised that purchasing an entire field prior to harvest would make packing that crop "agriculture" (exempt); Bland relied on that letter and did not pay overtime when it believed it had purchased fields.
- DOL sued alleging FLSA overtime violations for processing onions grown by other farmers; bench trial held and court found Bland Farms violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime for processing growers’ onions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether packing-shed work processing contract growers' onions is covered by the FLSA or exempt as "agriculture" | Packing-shed employees processing others' onions are non-agricultural employees entitled to overtime | Bland Farms: processing is secondary agriculture because Bland effectively acted as the farmer (including buying fields and directing production) | Held: Not agricultural. Contract growers were the farmers; Bland's advice and occasional services did not convert Bland into the farmer, so exemption does not apply |
| Whether Bland Farms is entitled to reduced or no liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C. § 260 | DOL seeks full liquidated damages | Bland Farms relies on good-faith reliance on 1985 DOL letter to avoid/reduce liquidated damages | Held: Good faith reliance justified partial reduction. Reduced liquidated damages for pre-suit period; full liquidated damages awarded for post-suit seasons |
| Whether Delbert Bland is personally liable under the FLSA | DOL: Delbert Bland is an employer and personally liable | Delbert Bland: not involved in day-to-day packing-shed operations; authority largely unexercised | Held: Not liable. Delbert Bland did not supervise day-to-day operations and thus is not an "employer" under the FLSA |
| Whether a permanent injunction against future FLSA violations is warranted | DOL seeks injunction to prevent future violations | Bland Farms: asserts a plausible legal position and no evidence of likely future noncompliance | Held: Denied. Court finds no basis to impose an "obey the law" injunction given Bland's plausible legal position and lack of evidence it will continue violations after judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb, 337 U.S. 755 (U.S. 1949) (distinguishes primary and secondary agriculture and requires that secondary practices relate to the farmer's own farming operations)
- Mitchell v. Huntsville Wholesale Nurseries, Inc., 267 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1959) (advice and assistance to contract growers insufficient to make purchaser the farmer for exemption)
- Wirtz v. Tyson's Poultry, Inc., 355 F.2d 255 (8th Cir. 1966) (agriculture exemption can apply where operations are completely integrated and purchaser bears risk and control)
- Rodriguez v. Farm Stores Grocery, Inc., 518 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2008) (burden on employer to prove good-faith and objective reasonableness for reducing liquidated damages)
- Perez v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 515 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2008) (individual liability under FLSA requires day-to-day operational control or direct supervision)
- Dybach v. State of Fla. Dep't of Corr., 942 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) (good-faith standard for employer intent to comply with FLSA)
- Dunlop v. Davis, 524 F.2d 1278 (5th Cir. 1975) (injunction appropriate where past conduct shows need to prevent future violations)
- Wirtz v. Atlas Roofing Mfg., 377 F.2d 112 (5th Cir. 1967) (injunction warranted where employer repeatedly violated FLSA after investigations)