Farms fight DOL bid to broaden ‘hot goods’ case
Oregon blueberry farms accused of “hot goods” labor law violations are asking a federal judge not to allow the U.S. Department of Labor to expand the charges against them.
The agency wants to revise the original complaints filed in 2012 against Pan-American Berry Growers and B&G Ditech that accused them of paying pickers less than the minimum wage.
DOL is now asking to change the complaints to include new allegations of wrongdoing in 2010 and 2011 and to add Pan-American’s CEO and three labor contractors as defendants. The agency also wants to charge them with violating the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, in addition to the previous allegations of Fair Labor Standards Act violations.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin will hold oral arguments on the DOL’s motion to amend the complaints during a telephone hearing on Dec. 3.
The farms agreed to pay the DOL $220,000 in 2012 to settle the charges but later convinced a federal judge to overturn the deals because they had been signed under economic duress.
DOL had threatened to block shipments of their fresh blueberries as unlawfully produced “hot goods” unless they agreed to pay alleged back wages and penalties and waive their right to challenge the allegations.
With the settlements invalidated, DOL’s lawsuits against the farms have been re-opened and the agency wants to add the new allegations.
The blueberry farms say it would be unfair to include new allegations about alleged wrongdoing in 2010 and 2011 because they were not investigated by DOL in those years and thus had no reason to maintain records or preserve witness statements from that time.
The proposed new defendants would also be prejudiced by their inclusion in the lawsuit because they were never put on notice about the allegations between 2010 and 2012, even though DOL could have named them in the original complaints, the farms say in a court brief.
“It is one thing to amend a complaint to make limited changes, but another to add parties, add legal theories, and extend the reach of litigation further back in time — when a party could have done so at the inception of the case,” the brief said. “DOL offers no explanation such as recently discovered evidence which might justify the change in course.”
In a response brief, DOL discounts the fact it could have included the allegations in 2012.
Those charges weren’t included in the original complaints because they were part of a “negotiated settlement” that excluded certain allegations, the agency claims.
“For that reason the original complaint asserted only a portion of the claims for unpaid wages and violations of labor statutes that were included in the settlement,” DOL said in a court brief.