Posted
August 19, 2013
In Fulford v.
Daughtry, No. 4:11-CV-103-FL., 2013 WL 3475292 (E.D.N.C. July 10, 2013),
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina awarded
$4,400 in damages to the farm workers for their employers’ violation of the posting
requirement under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act
(AWPA). For a copy of the decision,
please contact the National Agricultural Law Center at nataglaw@uark.edu. For more information on
the AWPA, visit the Center’s Labor Reading Room here.
Background
In March of 2010 several individuals worked for the
defendants, planting broccoli on their farm.
Id. at *1. On June 20, 2011, plaintiffs, eleven of the
workers, filed a complaint alleging violations of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801, et seq., and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”). Id. Both parties moved for summary
judgment, the motions being granted in part and denied in part. Id.
The court held that the defendants violated the AWPA’s posting requirement, 29
U.S.C. § 1831(b). Id. On June 27, 2013, the parties filed supplemental briefings as
to damages under the AWPA. Id.
Analysis and Holding
The court previously held that defendants violated the
AWPA’s posting requirement for employers of seasonal agricultural workers, 29
U.S.C. § 1831(b). Id. The AWPA provides that
the court “may award damages up to and including an amount equal to the amount
of actual damages, or statutory damages of up to $500 per plaintiff per
violation.” Id. (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1)). The amount of statutory damages is within
the court’s discretion. Id.
The courts, however, consider several factors known as the Beliz factors in determining those
damages. Id. (citing Beliz v. W.H. McLoad & Sons Packing Co.,
756 F.2d 1317, 1332 (5th Cir. 1985)). The factors considered include: “(1) the
total award; (2) the nature and persistence of the violation; (3) the extent of
the defendants’ culpability; (4) damage awards in similar cases; (5) the
defendants’ ability to prevent future violations of the AWPA; (6) the
substantive or technical nature of the violations; and (7) the circumstances of
each case.” Id. Additionally, the court noted that “it should
not be cheaper for defendants to violate the AWPA than to comply with its
requirements.” Id.
The court explained that the violations in this case
were technical because the poster was not accessible to workers, but the
information in the poster was distributed to them. Id.
at *2. Defendants were experienced in
hiring agricultural workers and had a poster with the required information, but
they failed to post the notice in a “conspicuous location for those working in
the fields.” Id. The court awarded
plaintiffs $400 per plaintiff for the violation of the AWPA’s posting
requirement, with a total award of $4,400. Id.
at *2.
