Saucedo v. John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Co., 185 Wash. 2d 171

Plaintiffs are a class of 722 former employees of NW Management and Realty Services, who worked on apple orchards owned by John Hancock entities and Texas Municipal Plans Consortium and managed under leases by Farmland Management Services.
Farmland subleased the orchards to NW, paying NW a per‑acre fee and requiring NW to hire, employ, discharge, and supervise all workers on the properties; NW never obtained a Washington farm labor contractor license.
Plaintiffs sued in federal court alleging NW violated the Farm Labor Contractor Act (FLCA) and that Farmland and the landowners are jointly and severally liable under RCW 19.30.200 for using an unlicensed farm labor contractor.
The district court certified the class on two FLCA claims, granted summary judgment to plaintiffs, and awarded damages and fees; defendants appealed and the Ninth Circuit certified two questions to the Washington Supreme Court.
Certified questions: (1) whether NW qualifies as a “farm labor contractor” under RCW 19.30.010(2)–(3); (2) whether RCW 19.30.200 imposes joint and several liability on a user who fails to inspect a license or confirm licensure with the Department, even without actual knowledge of non‑licensure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an entity paid a per‑acre fee to manage orchards and hire/ supervise workers is a "farm labor contractor" under RCW 19.30.010(2)–(3)	NW performed "employing" and "hiring" for a fee, so it fits the statutory definition	NW is effectively an agricultural employer, not a contractor; the statute or legislative intent contemplates a distinct "broker" role or a single‑employer exemption	Held yes: NW is a farm labor contractor because it performed hiring/employing for a fee; statutory definitions are not mutually exclusive and no judicially created exemption applies
Whether a user is jointly and severally liable under RCW 19.30.200 for using an unlicensed contractor absent knowledge if the user did not inspect a license or confirm with the Department	"Knowingly" is defined by the statute's second sentence: a user "knowingly" uses an unlicensed contractor if the user fails to either inspect the license or obtain Department confirmation	"Knowingly" requires actual or constructive knowledge; the second sentence creates a discretionary safe harbor rather than an affirmative verification duty	Held yes: RCW 19.30.200 requires users to either inspect the license or confirm with the Department; failure to do so satisfies the statute's "knowingly" element and triggers joint and several liability, even without actual knowledge

Saucedo v. John Hancock Life & Health Ins. Co., 796 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2015) (Ninth Circuit certified questions to Washington Supreme Court)
Perez‑Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 175 Wn.2d 518 (Wash. 2012) (FLCA construed as remedial statute to prevent worker exploitation)
Carlsen v. Global Client Solutions, LLC, 171 Wn.2d 486 (Wash. 2011) (certified questions reviewed de novo)
O.S.T. v. Regence BlueShield, 181 Wn.2d 691 (Wash. 2014) (statutory interpretation seeks legislature's intent)
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014) (court may not disregard clear statutory language based on perceived legislative intent)