Defending the Rights of Seasonal Agricultural Workers

Defending the Rights of Seasonal Agricultural Workers

Agricultural workers of all kinds — including seasonal workers on H-2A visas — deserve basic workplace protections, including the right to meet with guests and service providers in the workers’ employer-provided housing without fear of retaliation and protection from injury during their commutes to work. The Biden Administration finalized a rule to ensure these and other protections for workers in temporary agricultural employment. Several coalitions of Republican-led states, employers, and agribusiness organizations have filed multiple legal challenges to the rule. FarmSTAND is representing farmworker advocacy groups and farmworkers in several of these cases as amicus curiae or proposed intervenors to defend the rule.

Kansas v. U.S. Department of Labor (S.D. Ga.)

In the case of Kansas v. U.S. Department of Labor, a coalition of 17 Republican-led States and agribusiness organizations filed a challenge to the rule in federal court in Georgia. FarmSTAND and Sur Legal filed an amicus curiae brief defending the rule on behalf of a group of farmworker advocates and workers who have labored alongside workers on H-2A visas. The amici groups are Comité de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agrícolas, Community Legal Services, Farmworker Justice, Farmworker Legal Services, The Georgia Legal Services Program, Justice at Work, Legal Action of Wisconsin, Legal Aid Society of Mid-New York, Inc., The National Legal Aid & Defender Association, The Northwest Workers’ Justice Project, Sur Legal, United Farm Workers, and The UFW Foundation.

While the Republican-led states specifically challenged parts of the rule related to worker organizing, they nevertheless asked the court to shred the entire rule.  A federal judge in Georgia sided with the states and issued an injunction blocking the entire rule from going into effect in the 17 states involved in the case. This ruling will gravely harm the hundreds of thousands of agricultural workers who need its protection. FarmSTAND then filed another amicus curiae brief in support of the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment, emphasizing why the rule should stand and go into effect nationwide.

FarmSTAND will continue to monitor the case and evaluate additional opportunities to help defend the rule’s vital protections for farmworkers.

Barton v. U.S. Department of Labor (E.D. Ky.)

Several private plaintiffs including individual farm owners and agribusiness organizations sued to challenge the H-2A rule in federal court in Kentucky. The states of Kentucky, Alabama, Ohio, and West Virginia joined the case as Plaintiff-Intervenors, also challenging the final rule.

Several worker advocacy groups and individual farmworkers moved to intervene as Defendant-Intervenors, seeking to defend this essential rule. FarmSTAND, along with Daniel Canon of Saeed & Little, LLP, represents these proposed Intervenors: Odin Millard, Dexter Starks, Willie Shelly, Farmworker Justice, Legal Action of Wisconsin, and the UFW Foundation.

A federal judge in Kentucky denied the motion to intervene. The judge also sided with the Plaintiffs and states and issued an injunction blocking parts of the rule from going into effect in the four states involved in the case and against the private plaintiffs and members of agribusiness organization plaintiffs. These rulings compound the harm to agricultural workers who need the rule’s protection.

North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation v. U.S. Department of Labor (E.D.N.C.)

The North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation along with two farm businesses filed suit in federal court in North Carolina to challenge the new H-2A rule.

Several worker advocacy groups and individual farmworkers have moved to intervene as Defendant-Intervenors, seeking to defend this essential rule. FarmSTAND, along with North Carolina Justice Center, represents these proposed Intervenors: Odin Millard, Dexter Starks, Willie Shelly, Farmworker Justice and the UFW Foundation. The motion to intervene is pending, as are cross-motions for summary judgment. FarmSTAND filed a proposed opposition to the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment with its intervention.