62 F.4th 509
9th Cir.2023Background
- GEO Group operates the Northwest ICE Processing Center (NWIPC) in Tacoma under a contract with ICE; facility confines civil immigration detainees (not criminal prisoners).
- NWIPC offered a Voluntary Work Program (VWP) in which detainees performed essential facility tasks (meals, laundry, janitorial); GEO administered job assignments, training, and supervision.
- GEO typically paid detainee workers $1/day (ICE reimbursed $1/day); occasionally up to $5/day; GEO’s contract required compliance with applicable state and local laws and allowed higher pay.
- Plaintiffs (a detainee class) and the State sued under Washington’s Minimum Wage Act (MWA); a jury found for plaintiffs and the district court awarded $17.3M in back pay to the class and $5.95M in unjust enrichment to the State.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit did not resolve the merits; instead it certified three unsettled questions of Washington law to the Washington Supreme Court concerning (1) whether the detainees are MWA "employees," (2) whether the MWA applies to comparable detainee work at state‑contracted private facilities, and (3) whether the class damages bar the State’s unjust enrichment equitable remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detainees working in NWIPC’s VWP are "employees" under the MWA | Detainees are economically dependent and perform essential labor for GEO; thus they meet the MWA employee test (economic‑dependence). | GEO: MWA excludes "resident, inmate, or patient" of correctional/detention institutions; case law limits exclusion to public institutions and excludes detainees from MWA coverage. | Question certified to the Washington Supreme Court for decision. |
| If detainees are employees, whether the MWA also covers comparable work at private facilities operating under a State contract | State: §49.46.010(3)(k) excludes public institutions but not private contractors; MWA should apply to state‑contracted private facilities. | GEO: If state‑contracted facilities are treated better than federal contractors it raises intergovernmental immunity and Supremacy Clause problems; state guidance may distinguish public vs private settings. | Question certified to the Washington Supreme Court for decision. |
| If detainees are employees but MWA does not apply to state‑contracted facilities, whether class damages are an adequate legal remedy that precludes State’s unjust enrichment claim | State: Class damages do not remedy harm to local labor market or unjust benefit GEO gained; equitable relief (restitution) remains appropriate. | GEO: The MWA damages remedy is adequate at law and bars equitable unjust enrichment. | Question certified to the Washington Supreme Court for decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 281 P.3d 289 (Wash. 2012) (adopts the economic‑dependence test for MWA employee status)
- Hill v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 253 P.3d 430 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011) (interprets MWA exclusion for institutional residents in public institutions)
- Calhoun v. State, 193 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (addresses MWA coverage for individuals in public commitment facility)
- Ndambi v. CoreCivic, Inc., 990 F.3d 369 (4th Cir. 2021) (holds FLSA does not cover detainees in custodial settings)
- Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1993) (rejects categorical exclusion of incarcerated individuals from FLSA coverage)
- Seattle Prof. Eng’g Emps. Ass’n v. Boeing Co., 991 P.2d 1126 (Wash. 2000) (equitable relief unavailable when adequate remedy at law exists)
- United States v. City of Arcata, 629 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (discusses intergovernmental immunity limits on state regulation affecting the federal government)
- North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423 (1990) (federal‑state immunity principles)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (discussed for abrogation/context regarding federal‑state law interaction)