Victor Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc.
735 F.3d 892
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Peri & Sons hires Mexican temporary farmworkers under the H-2A program to grow and process onions in Nevada.
- Farmworkers incurred travel, immigration, visa, recruitment, and related expenses, arguing the costs benefited the employer and violated wage laws if unreimbursed.
- The SAC alleged FLSA violations, breach of contract, Nevada wage-and-hour claims, and Nevada Constitutional minimum wage claims.
- The district court dismissed FLSA claims, contract claims, and state-law claims as redundant or time-barred, prompting an appeal.
- The court addressed whether FLSA reimbursement requirements apply to H-2A workers, and whether DOL rules interpreting these provisions are entitled to Chevron deference.
- The court ultimately reversed in part, holding the FLSA requires certain first-week reimbursements, affirmed some state-law dismissals, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FLSA reimbursement rules apply to H-2A workers | Farmworkers: FLSA requires first-week reimbursement for travel/immigration costs. | Peri & Sons: H-2A regs render FLSA reimbursements superfluous; regulations interplay waives additional reimbursements. | FLSA reimbursement applies; district court erred in denying first-week reimbursements. |
| Whether DOL's interpretation of FLSA/H-2A regulations is entitled to Chevron deference | DOL interpretation is reasonable and should be adopted. | DOL interpretation is not reasonable or applicable to these facts. | We defer to the DOL interpretation as reasonable under Chevron. |
| Whether farmworkers pled breach of contract claims with sufficient specificity | Job orders and certifications constitute the contract; alleged damages are plausible. | Breaches were inadequately pled beyond restating wage claims. | SAC plausibly pled breach of contract; district court erred in dismissal. |
| Whether Nevada wage/contract claims should be dismissed as duplicative or misapplied | Nevada claims align with federal law and should be allowed to proceed. | State-law claims track federal precedent and should fail if federal does. | Disallowing dismissal; state-law claims survive to the extent not duplicative and are allowed to proceed. |
| What statute-of-limitations applies to FLSA, contract, and state claims | Willful FLSA violations justify a longer three-year period; others have applicable periods. | District court correctly applied two-year FLSA limitations and ignored four-year/state-equivalent periods. | Three-year limits for willful FLSA claims; two-year for others; six-year for breach of contract; four-year for state constitutional claims; remanded accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (deferring to agency interpretations when statutory ambiguity exists)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (U.S. Supreme Court 1997) (agency interpretations stand unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent)
- Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (clarifies deference limits for agency interpretations)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (willful violation extend statute of limitations to three years)