661 F.3d 587
11th Cir.2011Background
- Bland Farms hires migrant workers via the H-2A visa program to work in Georgia.
- Bland contracts with International Labor for certain H-2A administration tasks; recruitment largely done by Bland.
- Federal regulations require housing provided to H-2A workers and a meal reimbursement regime; housing is provided at no cost by Bland.
- District court treated housing as a wage credit under 29 U.S.C. § 203(m) to offset travel expenses.
- District court allowed Bland to credit meals and housing to wages, and dismissed a claim for fees charged by third parties.
- Eleventh Circuit clarifies that wage credits for housing may be limited by the ‘primarily for the employer’ regulation, and that meals may be creditable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Bland receive a wage credit for housing under 203(m)? | Ramos-Barrientos: housing primarily benefits employer, not employee, so no credit. | Bland: housing is within 203(m) credit; regulation allows it when customary and reasonable. | Bland not entitled to housing wage credits. |
| May Bland receive wage credits for meals under 203(m)? | Ramos-Barrientos: meals are employee benefits, not a wage credit. | Bland: meals are creditable as employee benefits under 203(m). | Bland entitled to wage credits for meals. |
| Is Bland liable to reimburse workers for third-party recruitment/consular fees under agency law? | Ramos-Barrientos: Bland authorized or is liable for fees charged by Manpower/Consular Services. | Bland did not authorize or ratify such fees; no agency liability. | Bland not liable for these third-party fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arriaga v. Fla. Pac. Farms, L.L.C., 305 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2002) (reimbursable travel costs to the extent they offset minimum wage under 203(m))
- Donovan v. New Floridian Hotel, Inc., 676 F.2d 468 (11th Cir. 1982) (meals may be treated as part of wages under 203(m))
- Davis Bros. v. Donovan, 700 F.2d 1368 (11th Cir. 1983) (credit for in-kind payments of wages; distinction from 203(m) issues)
- Shultz v. Hinojosa, 432 F.2d 259 (5th Cir. 1970) (primarily for employer benefit regulation under 203(m))
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (deference to agency interpretations under Chevron/Auer)
- Soler v. G. & U., Inc., 833 F.2d 1104 (2d Cir. 1987) (longstanding agency interpretations may be persuasive)