In one of the largest settlements that has ever been received in a case alleging a violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, migrant forestry workers from Central America and Mexico will receive $2.75 million from the southeast Arkansas-based Superior Forestry Service Inc.
According to Chuck Bartels story for the Associated Press, last Thursday the farm works filed “the class-action settlement proposal” in U.S. District Court in Nashville, TN. Bartels reports that a fairness hearing is set for March 26, 2010. At that time Judge William J. Haynes, Jr. “is expected to grant final approval to the settlement,” according to the AP.
Under the federal guest-worker program, seasonal migrant workers were brought to the United States from Mexico and Central America to plant pine seedlings across the South for Superior. The workers allege that they were denied the wages they were entitled too, and Superior disputes this claim.
Among the private lawyers and organizations that took up the suit on behalf of the workers was the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) of Montgomery, Alabama, which, given its assistance in similar lawsuits in 2005-2006, and it pending case against Eller and Son Trees Inc. of Franklin Georgia, is used to these types of cases.
Bartels quotes SPLC attorney Jim Knoepp as stating, ‘"Guest workers are too often seen as disposable workers who can be cheated and exploited. . . This settlement sends a powerful message that these workers have rights and that their employers will be held accountable."’
This suit claims the workers’ compensation was less than both the minimum wage and the prevailing wage for the industry, and despite working over 40 hours a week, they were denied overtime pay. “The suit also says the workers didn’t receive pay that was promised for production work [,]” reports Bartels.
For their part, Superior denies underpaying the workers. T. Harold Pinkley, a Superior attorney, states in the Bartels article that ‘"[w]e do not believe that (the workers) were cheated of their pay . . . They were paid for the hours that they worked. Some were paid on a production-type basis. We believe that was complied with."’
The lawsuit was first filed in January 2006.
Posted: 02/17/10
