Torres-Lopez v. May

Torres-Lopez v. May

Opinion

 [*636]  OPINION

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:

In their second amended complaint ("complaint"), appellant farmworkers allege that [**2]  appellees (collectively, "Bear Creek Farms") ² violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219; the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("AWPA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872; and Oregon labor laws.

The alleged violations include the failure to pay the farmworkers the minimum wage required by state and federal law, and numerous statutory violations of record-keeping, reporting, safety, insurance, and registration requirements. The parties do not dispute that these violations occurred. Their only dispute concerns whether Bear Creek Farms was liable for the alleged violations as a "joint employer" of the farmworkers within the meaning of the FLSA, AWPA, and Oregon labor laws.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that Bear Creek Farms was not a joint employer of the farmworkers [**3]  within the meaning of the FLSA and AWPA. In arriving at this conclusion, the district court considered the five regulatory factors set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 500.20(h)(4)(ii). These regulatory factors relate to whether an alleged joint employer exerts control over workers and their wages. The district court also considered non-regulatory factors applied in judicial interpretations of the FLSA found in federal case law. These non-regulatory factors relate to whether a farmworker is economically dependent on the alleged joint employer. The district court therefore granted summary judgment on the FLSA and AWPA claims, ruling that Bear Creek Farms was not a joint employer of the farmworkers.

Holding that the FLSA and AWPA standards for joint employment may be used to define joint employment under Oregon law as well, the district court also granted summary judgment to Bear Creek Farms on the Oregon labor law claims. These state law claims have not been fully addressed by the  [*637]  parties on appeal. Moreover, the district court's grant of summary judgment relies largely on the district court's interpretation of the FLSA and AWPA standards for joint employment. Accordingly, we decline to address [**4]  the Oregon law claims. We instead focus on the district court's analysis of the FLSA and AWPA.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.