United States District Court

For the Middle District of Florida.

Frank Strong,

Plaintiff

v.

Wardell Williams et al.,

Defendants.

No. 78-124-Civ-TG.

1980 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14185

April 22, 1980.

Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law

CARR, D.J.: This case was tried before the Court on January 8, 1980. The action was brought under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2041 et seq .; the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq .; and the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq . After consideration of the evidence adduced at trial, the arguments of counsel, the record in its entirety, and the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by counsel, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P.

Findings of Fact

1. At all times pertinent, the Plaintiff, Frank Strong, was a migrant farm worker and Defendants, Dorothy and Wardell Williams, were farm labor contractors within the meaning of 7 U.S.C. § 2042 (b).

2. Late in August of 1977 in Columbus, Georgia, the Plaintiff was recruited by Morrell Williams, an agent of the Defendants, to work in the Defendants’ farm labor crew in North Carolina. At the time he was recruited and hired, the Plaintiff was not shown a farm labor contractor registration card as required by 7 U.S.C. §§ 2043(b) and 2045(a). Furthermore, no written disclosure was made of the terms and conditions of the proposed employment at the time the Plaintiff was recruited and hired for his North Carolina employment as required by 7 U.S.C. § 2045 (b).

3. Morrell Williams transported the Plaintiff from Columbus, Georgia, to a labor camp in North Carolina controlled by the Defendants. The Plaintiff was housed in the camp in the latter part of August, 1977:

a. Prior to the occupancy of the Plaintiff and other workers, the Defendants did not obtain authorization to house migrant farm workers in North Carolina as required by 7 U.S.C. § 2044(a)(4).

b. The Defendants did not post the terms and conditions of occupancy at the North Carolina camp as required by 7 U.S.C. P2054(d).

c. There was not a trained health person readily accessible for use at all times in the North Carolina camp as required by 7 U.S.C. §§ 2044(a)(4) and (b)(12).

4. During the Plaintiff’s employment with them in North Carolina, the Defendants failed to post the Plaintiff’s wages to the Barnes Farming Corporation payroll records for the week of October 27, 1977. Other workers’ wages were not posted from time to time as well. Additionally, the Defendants failed to record deductions on the pay records other than those for social security and fabricated entries in the records for hours worked. Thus, the Defendants failed to keep accurate payroll records of the employment of the Plaintiff and other workers as required by 7 U.S.C. § 2045(e).

5. The pay statements furnished to the Plaintiff in North Carolina were his weekly pay envelopes. Those envelopes did not provide a statement of all sums paid to the Defendants on account of the labor of the Plaintiff. Additionally, the Defendants did not provide an itemized statement of all sums withheld and the purpose for which withheld from the amount received by them on account of the Plaintiff’s labor. Both statements are required by 7 U.S.C. P2045(e).

6. The Defendants made deductions from the Plaintiff’s wages for contributions under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (F.I.C.A.) which exceeded by $12.33 the amount actually paid to the Internal Revenue Service on his behalf. In addition, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff less than the minimum hourly wage of $2.20 an hour for the period of his employment. By making these unauthorized retentions of moneys entrusted to them by a grower on the Plaintiff’s behalf, the Defendants did not comply with the requirements of 7 U.S.C. § 2045(g).

7. At the end of the North Carolina growing season in November, 1977, the plaintiff was transported by the Defendants to Wauchula, Florida, for the purpose of working in the Defendants’ farm labor crew. Since Plaintiff was initially recruited and hired only to work in North Carolina, Plaintiff’s work in Florida constituted a transaction separate and distinct from his North Carolina employment. The Defendants again neither showed the Plaintiff a Farm Labor contractor registration card as required by 7 U.S.C. § 2045 (a), nor disclosed to him in writing the terms and conditions of the proposed Florida employment as required by 7 U.S.C. § 2045(b).

8. While working in Florida, the Plaintiff was housed in a camp owned and controlled by the Defendants:

a. Prior to the occupancy of the Plaintiff and other workers, the Defendants did not obtain authorization to house migrant farm workers in Florida as required by 7 U.S.C. § 2044 (a)(4).

b. The Defendants did not post the terms and conditions of occupancy at the Florida camp as required by 7 U.S.C. § 2045(d).

c. There was not a trained health person readily accessible for use at all times in the Florida camp as required by 7 U.S.C. §§ 2044(a)(4) and (b)(12).

For a variety of reasons, including the involvement of Defendant Wardell Williams in prior lawsuits involving similar claims n1, the Defendants had actual notice of the aforementioned requirements of the Farm Labor Contractors Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2041 et seq . In spite of such notice, the Defendants engaged in the above practices on a broad scale and in the ordinary course of their business.

10. By extending credit in conjunction with purchases made at the camp commissary, the Defendants regularly made loans to the Plaintiff and other employees. These loans were repayable in more than four installments, and the Plaintiff in fact undertook to repay such a loan in more than four installments during his employment with the Defendants. Prior to the first such loan transaction with the Plaintiff, the Defendants did not make the written disclosures required by 12 C.F.R. § 226.7 (a).

11. Although the Defendants failed to keep credible records, the Court finds, based on the evidence offered by the Plaintiff, that he worked a total of 454.75 hours in North Carolina picking sweet potatoes. The Plaintiff worked 34.50 more hours in North Carolina harvesting tobacco, and a total of 30 hours in Florida.

12. The Defendants, due to their negligence and/or intentional action, do not have records of show the date, amount and nature of each deduction from the Plaintiff’s wages as required by 29 C.F.R. § 516.2(a)(10). For the same (reasons) Defendants do not have records to substantiate the actual cost of goods furnished for which deductions were made as required by 29 C.F.R. § 531.27.

a. Weekly deductions were made from the Plaintiff’s wages for “food.” These deductions, totaling $320.00, were for meals the Defendants provided the Plaintiff while he was employed by them.

b. Weekly deductions were made from the Plaintiff’s wages for “loans.” These deductions, totaling $255.75, were for wine, beer and other items purchased on credit by the Plaintiff from the Defendants’ commissary. At the time of these purchases, Defendants did not have a permit to sell beer or wine in North Carolina.

c. On seven occasions, the Defendant made deductions from the Plaintiff’s weekly pay for “util.” These deductions totaled $14.00. It is unclear from the record why these charges were imposed.

13. Defendants made an $8.00 deduction from Plaintiff’s wages of November 11, 1977, for “rent.” At the time this charge was imposed, the Defendants were not authorized to house migrant workers in their Florida labor camp because they had not met the requirements of 7 U.S.C. § 2044(a)(4).

Conclusions of Law

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action.

2. The Defendants, farm labor contractors, have violated the following provisions of the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2041 et seq .:

a. 7 U.S.C. § 2045(a). Failure to exhibit a certificate of registration as a farm labor contractor upon recruiting the Plaintiff for employment in North Carolina.

b. 7 U.S.C. § 2045(b). Failure to disclose fully and in writing the terms and conditions of employment in North Carolina.

c. 7 U.S.C. § 2044(a)(4). Use of real property for the housing of migrant workers in North Carolina without first obtaining authorization to do so.

d. 7 U.S.C. P2045(d). Failure to post in a conspicuous place the terms and conditions of occupancy of the housing controlled by the Defendants in North Carolina.

e. 7 U.S.C.§§ 2044(a)(4) and (b) (12). Use and control of real property for the housing of migrant workers in North Carolina while not complying with applicable federal health and safety regulations.

f. 7 U.S.C. § 2045(e). Failure to keep proper payroll records regarding Plaintiff’s North Carolina employment.

g. 7 U.S.C. § 2045(e). Failure to provide Plaintiff an itemized statement of all sums paid to Defendants on account of the labor of Plaintiff in North Carolina and failure to provide a statement of all sums withheld from that amount.

h. 7 U.S.C. § 2045(g). Failure to promptly pay or contribute when due all moneys entrusted the Defendants in North Carolina by a farm operator for such purposes.

i. 7 U.S.C. § 2045(a). Failure to exhibit a certificate of registration as a farm labor contractor upon recruiting the Plaintiff for employment in Florida.

j. 7 U.S.C. § 2045(b). Failure to disclose fully and in writing the terms and conditions of employment in Florida.

k. 7 U.S.C. § 2044(a)(4). Use of real property for the housing of migrant workers in Florida without first obtaining authorization to do so.

l. 7 U.S.C. § 2045(d).Failure to post in a conspicuous place the terms and conditions of occupancy of the housing controlled by the Defendants in Florida.

m. 7 U.S.C. P2044(a)(4) and (b) (12). Use and control of real property for the housing of migrant workers in Florida while not complying with applicable federal health and safety regulations.

3. Under the Farm Labor Contractors Registration Act, liquidated statutory damages of $500 for each intentional violation are authorized. 7 U.S.C. § 2050 (b). Aranda v. Pena , 413 F.Supp. 849 (S.D. Fla. 1976); DeLeon v. Ramirez , 465 F.Supp. 698 (S.D. N.Y. 1979). Since the Act is remedial in nature, the Courts must construe it in a fashion which effectuates rather than frustrates the legislature’s intent. Aranda, supra at 850; EEOC v. Louisville and Nashville Railway Co., 505 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1974).The Defendants engaged in the above violations as part of their normal business practices even though actual notice of the requirements of the Act had been imparted to them through the involvement of Defendant Wardell Williams in prior civil actions involving similar claims. There is no doubt that the Defendants’ violations of the Act were intentional. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a judgment for liquidated damages of $500.00 per violation for a total of $6,500.00.

4. Under the provisions of the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq ., the Defendants were creditors. 12 C.F.R. § 226.2(s); Mourning v. Family Service Publications , 411 U.S. 356, 369 (1973). The credit purchases made by the Plaintiff from the Defendants were consumer credit transactions. 12 C.F.R. §§ 226.2 (p) and (q). By failing to disclose in writing the terms of credit to the Plaintiff, the Defendant violated the Act and regulations, 12 C.F.R. § 226.7(a), and the Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for statutory damages of $100.00, plus costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a); Mourning, supra at 376.

5.Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq ., the Defendants were obligated to pay the Plaintiff the minimum wage then in effect of at least $2.20 per hour:

a. By engaging in a pattern of negligent and/or intentional conduct n2, the Defendants failed to keep accurate and adequate records of the hours worked by the Plaintiff. The Court has therefore considered the Plaintiff’s evidence and found that he has shown by just and reasonable inference the amount and extent of work performed for which he was improperly compensated. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co ., 328 U.S. 680, 687, 688; Skipper v. Superior Dairies , 512 F.2d 409, 410, 411 (5th Cir. 1975). The Defendants have not disproved the evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff. Skipper, supra at 420. The total amount of the Plaintiff’s unpaid gross hourly wages is $467.50. See Plaintiff’s Appendix VI.

b. The Defendants have no records showing the date, purpose, and actual cost or reasonable cost of goods furnished for each pay deduction made for “food”, “loan” and “util.” Since the Defendants have failed to properly document the basis of these deductions, they are unlawful and cannot be counted as wages paid to the Plaintiff. Brennan v. Veterans Cleaning Service, Inc ., 482 F. 2d 1362, 1370; 29 C.F.R. § 531.31.

c. The Defendants sold beer and wine to the Plaintiff and other crew members at their North Carolina camp without a permit in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 18A-30 and 37, and the deductions for “loan” were in large part charges for these illegal credit sales of beer and wine. Thus, the charges for “loan” cannot be counted as wages not only for the above stated reason that they were not properly documented, but also due to the fact that they partially or wholly imposed in conjunction with illegal credit sales of beer and wine. 29 C.F.R. § 531.31.

d. The Defendants violated the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, (F.I.C.A.), 26 U.S.C. § 3101, by failing to remit to the Internal Revenue payroll taxes on Plaintiff’s wages in the sum of $12.33. Since this amount was not paid as required by law, (1) it cannot be counted as wages paid to the Plaintiff, 29 U.S.C. § 531.38, and (2) the Plaintiff is entitled to an Order directing the Defendants to file a 943 Tax Return and remit the F.I.C.A. taxes due.

e. The Defendants rented housing to the Plaintiff in Florida while not authorized to house migrant workers under 7 U.S.C. § 2044(a)(4). Thus, the $8.00 deduction from the Plaintiff’s wages for rent in Florida is unlawful and cannot be counted as wages. 29 C.F.R.§ 531.31.

f. The various deductions noted above are unlawful only to the extent that they reduce Plaintiff’s wages in any week below the minimum wage. 29 C.F.R. § 531.36. The total amount of unlawful deductions is $605.08. See Plaintiff’s Appendix VI.

g. There is no evidence in the record that the Defendants’ violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act occurred despite a good faith effort to comply with the Act. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover for all unpaid hourly wages plus all unlawful deductions, for a total of $1,072.58, plus a like amount as liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorney’s fee for this claim.

6. In summary, the Plaintiff, Frank Strong, is entitled to judgment as follows:

a. Farm Labor Contractor Act claims - $6,500.00, plus attorney’s fees and costs.

b. Truth-in-Lending Act claim - $100.00, plus attorney’s fees and costs.

c. Fair Labor Standards Act claim - $2,145.16, plus attorney’s fees and costs.

d. Entry of an Order as provided in paragraph 5 d, Conclusions of Law, above.

Counsel for Plaintiff are directed to make application for the fixing of a reasonable attorney’s fee supported by affidavits. The Court will fix the same and direct the Clerk to enter judgment consistent therewith.

Notes:

1. Brennan v. Williams , No. 1326 (E.D.N.C., Judgment entered October 10, 1973); Ray v. Williams, No. 75-121-Civ-JE (S.D. Fla., filed January 30, 1975).

2. The Court is unmoved by the Defendants’ explanation that certain crucial records were consumed by voracious rodents. Even if the Court found this position credible (which it does not), the Defendants are required under the applicable regulation to keep payroll records in a safe place. 27 C.F.R. § 516.7(a).