Document: 494 U.S. 638 110 S.Ct. 1384 108 L.Ed.2d 585 ADAMS FRUIT COMPANY, INC., Petitionerv.Ramsford BARRETT, et al. No. 88-2035. Argued Jan. 17, 1990. Decided March 21, Syllabus Respondents, migrant farmworkers employed by petitioner, received benefits under Florida workers' compensation law for injuries they suffered in an automobile accident while traveling to work petitioner's van. They subsequently filed suit against petitioner Federal District Court, alleging that their were attributable part intentional violations of the motor vehicle safety provisions Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), 29 U.S.C. § 1801 seq., accompanying regulations. sought actual statutory damages such pursuant AWPA's private right action provision, 1854. The court granted summary judgment on ground state provides its remedy is exclusive, respondents' receipt therefore precluded them from recovering AWPA same injuries. Court Appeals reversed, holding exclusivity provision does not bar a suit. Held: Exclusivity laws do workers availing themselves Pp. 642-651. (a) explicit language enforcement which establishes "[a]ny person aggrieved violation," 1854(a)—indicates unaffected availability remedies law. A congressional intent contrary established provisions, permit employers satisfy statute's insurance liability bond requirements through insurance. appear Title far removed latter contain Congress' sole express limitation relief, applies where no attempt was made resolve disputed issues before litigation. Had Congress intended limit further relief based adequacy remedies, it would have purpose clear provisions. Moreover, waiver inconsistent with overlapping AWPA, since agricultural employer, whether or has enrolled plan, will be liable if employee's exceed required minimum coverage. Although may choose establish as adequate alternatives federal cannot assumed rights are conditioned unavailability absent some indication effect. Cases this harmonized statutes provide contrary. 643-647. (b) pre-empts limited extent States supplant, rather than supplement, remedial scheme. Section 1871—which "is supplement State law, compliance [the statute] shall excuse any appropriate regulation"—does require give effect even withdraw action. 1871 permits scheme, viewed authorizing replace supersede remedies. Petitioner's claim preserve particular balance generally strike between assurance exclusive employer off target, fact affect suggest effective only certain States. all States, scope curtailed conflicts policies purportedly underlying regulatory schemes. directly conflict scheme's purposes permissible interstitial regulation. 647-649. (c) Even establishing ambiguous pre-emptive scope, need defer Department Labor's position benefits, applicable, loss statute. expressly Judiciary adjudicator action, Department's authorization promulgate standards bootstrap agency into area jurisdiction. 649-650. 867 F.2d 1305 (CA 11 1989) affirmed. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Bonita L. Kneeland, Tampa, Fla., petitioner. Laurence H. Tribe, Cambridge, Mass., respondents. Justice MARSHALL 1 In case we must decide 96 Stat. 2583, amended, seq. (1982 ed. Supp. V). We hold not. 2 * Adams Fruit Company, Inc., severe traveled Fruit's As result injuries, respondents thereafter 1841(b)(1)(A) ed.), regulations, CFR 500.105 (1989). Respondents maintained van transported inadequate support vehicle's weight; total number persons exceeded seating capacity; seat provided each passenger; overloaded; seats equipped belts; committed these intentionally. 1854 ed.).1 3 moved "shall place other . employee," Fla.Stat. 440.11 (1989), position, did not, creating workers, intend pre-empt interfere operation schemes, including motion, relying Fourth Circuit's decision Roman v. Sunny Slope Farms, 817 1116, 1118 (1987). Eleventh Circuit AWPA. 1305, 1311 certiorari split authority, 493 808, 49, 107 18 now affirm. II 4 504 cases violations. Resolution withdrawn depends two doctrinally related issues. First whether, matter construction, pursue circumstances. Second, simultaneous recovery determine pre-emption principles, precludes giving purport either case, issue turns statute and, dispositive, revealed history See, e.g., Consumer Product Safety Comm'n GTE Sylvania, 447 102, 108, 100 2051, 2056, 64 766 (1980) ("[T]he starting point interpreting itself"); Shaw Delta Air Lines, 463 85, 95, 103 2890, 2898, 77 490 (1983) ("[I]n deciding statute, our task ascertain enacting at issue"). general rule terms unambiguous, judicial inquiry complete. Rubin United 449 424, 430, 101 698, 701, 66 633 (1981). Pre-emption compelled command explicitly stated implicitly contained structure purpose." Jones Rath Packing Co., 430 519, 525, 97 1309, 51 604 (1977). A. 5 violation" Act's 1854(a) way intimate affected nevertheless contends dispositive because reflect available. 6 argument focuses 1841, concerns safety. Subsections 1841 standards, licensing, help secure safe transportation seasonal workers. protections, subsection (b)(1)(C) requires "have policy insures damage property arising ownership, operation, causing operated, used transport worker." Subsection waives requirement worker law." cases, "[n]o [is] employer" solely circumstances there coverage 7 maintains reflects preclude bodily injury obtained view, incongruous waive available time allow seek cumulative So construed, argues, creates trap unwary who reasonably could expected well. 8 unpersuasive rests extraordinary unjustified proposition regarding best discerned meaning alleged implicit IV Act, entitled "Further Protections Workers," whereas appears Subchapter V, Part A, labeled "Enforcement Provisions." found See 1854(c)(2) (authorizing court, "[i]n determining amount awarded ., consider dispute resort litigation"). AWPA.2 argument, relies remedy, basic principles construction placement words chosen Congress. Davis Michigan Dept. Treasury, 489 803, 813, 109 1500, 1506, 891 9 also flawed It true that, accordance 1841(c)(1)'s requirements, violation fails obtain sufficient cover potential long But possibility underinsurance present plan. limits carry, 1841(b)(3) ed.); exceeds coverage, nonetheless whole claim. 1854(c)(1) "up equal damages"); see 128 Cong.Rec. 32463 (1982) ("[F]ull [are to] every case"). respect, differ mandatory regimes level without absolute liability. Thus, decisions 1841(b)'s one hand, afford other, incompatible; indeed, consistent treatment exempted requirements.3 likewise reject contention authorizes vindicate right, should assume remedy. Indeed, "it when enacts make application dependent NLRB Natural Gas Utility Hawkins County, 402 600, 603, 91 1746, 1749, 206 (1971) (internal quotation marks citation omitted). but regarded supplementing state-created unless otherwise indicated. Gomez Toledo, 446 635, 639, 1920, 1923, 572 (construing 42 1983); Tennessee C., I. & R. Co. Muscoda Local 123, 321 590, 597, 702, 88 L.Ed. 949 (1944) Fair Labor Standards Act). 10 see, Demko, 385 149, 87 382, 17 258 (1966), held existence comprehensive scheme compensating injured prisoners supplemental Tort Claims Act. finding specific trumps more circumstances, conclusion cry presumption invariably one. Accordingly, plain indicates B 12 schemes mechanism redress points chapter regulation." On basis argues Florida's construes withdrawing 13 disagree Neither Legislature nor courts declared purpose; Supreme expressed view extraterritorial opposite. Byrd Richardson-Greenshields Securities, 552 So.2d 1099, 1102 (1989) (refusing frustrate sexual harassment "blind adherence alone" expressing commitment "not [to] apply manner effectively abrogates law"). decline invitation construe so create legislation.4 directed mandate displacement section Nor persuaded hand other. Whatever merits characterization compensation, target. That struck legislation curtailed. 14 More generally, refuse adopt "reverse" principle authorize exclusive. Such regulation service of, least neutral respect to, Cf. Mackey Lanier Collections Agency Service, 486 825, 834-838, 2182, 2188-2190, 836 (1988) (where collecting ERISA judgments, mechanisms pre-empted); Robertson Wegmann, 436 584, 594, 98 1991, 1997, 56 554 (1978) (application survivorship 1983 pre-empted impair federally secured right). Rather, 15 find C 16 absence statement "[w]here applicable death." 500.122(b) initial matter, failure speak "gap" within Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Resources Defense Council, 467 837, 843, 104 2778, 2781, 81 694 (1984), fill. created merely restate truism ambiguous, Secretary precondition deference delegation administrative authority. Bowen Georgetown University Hospital, 488 204, 208, 468, 471, 102 (1988). Food Commercial Workers, 484 112, 413, 420-421, 429 (1987) (Chevron review interpretations regulations "promulgated authority"); Crandon 152, 177, 997, 1011, 132 (1990) (SCALIA, concurring judgment) (rejecting administered courts"); cf. Bureau Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms FLRA, 464 89, 97, 439, 444, 78 195 sanction " 'unauthorized assumption major decisions' (quoting American Ship Building NLRB, 380 300, 318, 85 955, 967, 855 (1965)). No evident independent Executive direct recourse violated. Under inappropriate consult executive ambiguities surrounding judicially enforceable 19 clearly envisioned, indeed mandated, role administering requiring implementing 1841(d). This delegation, however, empower regulate power vested determinations delegated authority deference, fundamental "that itself jurisdiction." Maritime Seatrain 411 726, 745, 93 1773, 1785, 36 620 (1973); SEC Sloan, 103, 119, 1702, 1712, 148 (same); Adamo Wrecking 434 275, 288, n. 5, 566, 574, 54 538 "Administrator's unexplained exercise supposed authority"). Secretary's available, deference. III 20 Our leads us conclude 1854, relief.5 21 ordered. provides: "Any farm labor contractor, association, file district having jurisdiction parties, controversy regard citizenship parties exhaustion alternative herein." "If finds respondent intentionally violated chapter, award up damages, $500 per plaintiff violation, equitable relief. ." statutes, claimant injury. 1028, 1032, 1705(a) ed.) (providing paid furnished War Hazards Compensation Act] death recovers receives workmen's State"). For similar reasons, refusal exempt upsets employers' reasonable expectations Because floor ceiling liability, unreasonable. considerations, inequity occurs where, here, predicate ed.). California Texas Commonwealth Massachusetts—appearing amici curiae respondents—have urged affirm below. Each "has making personal system compensation," declares interest "prevent[ing] principal recompense being transmuted contraption destroying protection those workers." Brief Amici Curiae 1-2. agree below offset light farmworker's

Category: 9