Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02485/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02485-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1801 Farmworker Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jorge Alegre Gonzalez, et al. 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Tanimura & Antle, Inc. 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2485-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Statutory Damages

(Dkt.#131). After reviewing the motion and accompanying papers, the Court issues the

following Order.

After both parties moved for summary judgment, the Court ruled that Defendant had

violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to compensate Plaintiffs for time

they spent waiting for ice to melt off the fields. (Dkt.#119 at 13-22) It also held that

Defendant violated the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Act (“AWPA”) by failing

to keep a record of this time and for failing to include the basis upon which Plaintiffs’

incentive pay was calculated in their weekly payroll receipts, making it impossible for

Plaintiffs to discern whether they were appropriately paid for the work performed. (Dkt.#119

at 22-25) 

As part of its Order, the Court directed Defendant to “determine the damages owed to

Plaintiffs by making a good faith effort to calculate the hours Plaintiffs have waited for the

Case 2:06-cv-02485-MHM Document 145 Filed 09/01/09 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

ice to melt off the field for which they have not been paid.” (Dkt.#119 at 22) In response,

on December 30, 2008, Defendant produced a data compilation from weathersource.com, a

commercial weather provider that offers “tailored solution[s]” for “challenging weather

problem[s].” According to this data, the temperature fell below 38 degrees on only five days,

contradicting Plaintiff’s testimony, payroll records, and crew sheets, as well as the data

obtained by Plaintiffs from the Arizona Meteorological Network, which showed that in

Yuma Valley, the temperature was at or below 38 degrees on 75 days during the relevant

seasons. When Plaintiff’s counsel pointed out these facts to Defendant, Defendant responded

by requesting a copy of Plaintiff’s data, which Plaintiff provided with a request for an

accurate assessment of wait time damages, or in the alternative, a stipulation for statutory

damages. Defendant, however, did not respond. Based on Defendant’s failure to provide a

good faith estimate of damages, Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for Defendant’s FLSA

violation, as well as each of Defendant’s AWPA violations as ruled on in Plaintiff’s motion

for summary judgment. 

Defendant responds by arguing that it is inappropriate to award AWPA damages for

“alleged” violations of the FLSA. The Court has already ruled on this issue and held, in its

summary judgment order, that Defendant has violated the FLSA. This issue is no longer in

dispute. Therefore, any attempts by Defendant to confuse the issue by arguing that when

averaged out over the work week, Plaintiffs were paid at a rate that exceeded the FLSA

minimum, are completely unavailing. Defendants even go so far as to state that “Plaintiffs

are not entitled to AWPA statutory damages because no FLSA violation has occurred.”

(Dkt.#136 at 4) Setting aside for the moment the more difficult issue of whether AWPA

statutory damages may properly be used to remedy an FLSA violation, there is simply no

question that Defendant’s underlying premise is wrong. The FLSA has been violated.

Plaintiffs were not paid for the time they spent waiting for the ice to melt off the fields.

(Dkt.#119 at 13-22) The Court has already rejected Defendant’s attempts to average out this

time to make up for the FLSA violation at summary judgment and when ruling on

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. As Plaintiff points out in its Reply, even if the

Case 2:06-cv-02485-MHM Document 145 Filed 09/01/09 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Court were inclined to accept this argument, it would necessarily follow that the paystubs

provided to Plaintiffs contained erroneous information, further compounding Defendant’s

violations of the AWPA. The Court finds that the more sensible alternative is to reaffirm its

previous ruling at summary judgment and on Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration that

Plaintiffs’ time spent waiting for the ice to melt was uncompensated time. Thus, the only

remaining question as to this issue is the appropriate amount of damages.

Plaintiffs argue that because the two statutes are closely interrelated, it is appropriate

to use the AWPA to enforce the FLSA and cite two cases to support their position: Castillo

v. Givens, 704 F.2d 181, 198 n.41 (5th Cir. 1983) (noting that “the [FLCRA, now AWPA] can

be used to enforce rights conferred by the [FLSA]), disapproved of on other grounds by

McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988) and Maldonado v. Lucca, 636

F.Supp. 621, 640 (D.N.J. 1986) (noting that “penalties authorized under [AWPA] can be used

to address an employer’s failure to maintain proper payroll records, as required under both

[FLSA and AWPA]). Defendants respond that this request improperly circumvents the

FLSA and that the two cases mentioned above meant to limit their holding to situations

where rights that had been created but that were unenforceable under the FLSA might be

remedied by the AWPA. 

The Court finds that Defendants should be given one last chance to comply with the

Court’s summary judgment order that was issued nearly a year ago. Defendant is directed

to submit to Plaintiffs and this Court, no later than ten days from the date of this order, an

approximation of damages that includes days on which the temperature was at or below 38

degrees (excluding non-work days, which are likely comprised of Sundays and company

holidays in which no work occurred), as well as an explanation of the wait time per

individual per day and per week in order to allow Plaintiffs to determine whether this

approximation comports with their memories of the days in question. The Defendants are

to base this calculation on the data provided by the Arizona Meteorological Network that was

ultimately adopted as Exhibit C to Carmen Ponce’s Affidavit (Dkt.#137-10), since both

parties apparently agree that the data contained therein is a reasonable approximation of the

Case 2:06-cv-02485-MHM Document 145 Filed 09/01/09 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

temperatures in the relevant areas during the dates in question. If this calculation is not

completed within ten days, the Court will likely be inclined to exercise its discretion to award

Plaintiff statutory damages to each plaintiff in the amount of $500 for each violation of the

AWPA and FLSA. For the Plaintiffs who worked only one season, the total award for their

AWPA and FLSA claims would be $1,500 each, whereas for the Plaintiffs who worked all

three seasons, the award would be $4,500 each. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Statutory Damages for the time

being, while expressly granting Plaintiff the right to re-urge this motion if Defendants have

not completed a reasonable damages estimate as outlined above within ten days of the date

of this order. (Dkt.#131)

DATED this 31st day of August, 2009. 

Case 2:06-cv-02485-MHM Document 145 Filed 09/01/09 Page 4 of 4