throbber

`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01452-DAD-JLT Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 26
`
`
`
`JOSEPH TAYLOR GOOCH (SBN 294282)
`Taylor.Gooch@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1 Front Street, Suite 3500
`San Francisco, California 94111
`(628) 235-1000
`Telephone:
`(628) 235-1001
`Facsimile:
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`FRESNO DIVISION
`
`UNITED FARM WORKERS and UFW
`FOUNDATION,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`SONNY PERDUE, WILLIAM NORTHEY, and
`THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`AGRICULTURE,
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No. _________________
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01452-DAD-JLT Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 26
`
`
`
`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
`
`Plaintiffs United Farm Workers (“UFW”) and UFW Foundation for their Complaint against
`Defendants Sonny Perdue, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Agriculture; William
`Northey, in his official capacity as Under Secretary, Farm Production and Conservation; and United
`States Department of Agriculture (USDA) hereby allege as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`The United States critically depends on approximately 2.5 million farmworkers located
`1.
`in rural communities from coast to coast to produce the nation’s food supply and its agricultural
`exports. Although they are essential to ensure continuity of the food that Americans consume every
`day, these farmworkers are highly vulnerable to wage decline, job loss, or other economic dislocation.
`Their jobs typically offer only subsistence wages, are often seasonal, and are vulnerable to economic
`shocks to agricultural markets. Congress has charged defendant USDA, the U.S. Department of Labor
`(DOL), and other federal agencies with ensuring the economic security of farmworkers and the
`stability of agricultural production. While Congress has authorized the entry of foreign agricultural
`guestworkers in unlimited numbers when the domestic labor supply is inadequate, Congress also
`charged DOL with protecting U.S. farmworkers’ jobs and wages from the adverse economic
`consequences posed by the potentially limitless supply of foreign labor. To discharge their
`Congressionally mandated duties, the defendant agencies depend on accurate data about the nation’s
`farmworkers and agricultural labor markets. Numerous state and local government programs and
`private entities similarly need such data to fulfill their obligations to assist farmworkers in achieving
`economic security and just living and working conditions.
`On September 30, 2020, USDA published a cursory, one-page notice (the Notice) in
`2.
`the Federal Register announcing that it was suspending the survey that serves as the premier source
`for data on the agricultural labor markets and the only source of information about hiring and wages
`paid by U.S. farms, the Farm Labor Survey (FLS), and ceasing publication of the biannual Farm Labor
`Report (FLR). For over 100 years, USDA has consistently used the FLS to collect data about farm
`labor and wages. The Notice abruptly ended that practice.
`Notwithstanding its decision to cast aside a century-old practice, USDA provided no
`3.
`rationale for the FLS’s suspension and invited no public comment. USDA announced—without any
`1
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01452-DAD-JLT Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 3 of 26
`
`
`
`elaboration—that it had “determined the public can access other data sources for the data collected
`in the [FLS].” After reciting a few proposed alternatives (again, without any analysis or discussion),
`the Notice flatly stated that USDA will no longer conduct the FLS or publish the FLR. USDA did
`not consider the detrimental impact its decision would have on farmworker wages or explain why
`it chose to eliminate a survey that so many federal and state entities have relied on for so long.
`USDA’s decision to discontinue both the FLS (including the survey originally
`4.
`contemplated in October 2020) and the FLR (including the next publication in November 2020) will
`cause many hundreds of thousands of farmworkers already living on subsistence incomes to suffer
`significant wage cuts. Without FLS data, U.S. farmworkers and foreign guestworkers will be paid
`on average materially less per hour than what is currently permitted under H-2A regulations. For
`the typical, affected farmworker, the losses in annual income will amount to thousands or tens of
`thousands of dollars. Those wage decreases will send ripple effects throughout the farm labor
`market, ultimately resulting in many U.S. farmworkers being paid less as farms hire an increasing
`number of foreign laborers who can be paid lower wages than U.S. farmworkers currently receive.
`For a century, the FLS has regularly surveyed a nationally representative sample of
`5.
`farm employers. While the cadence of the survey has varied somewhat over the decades, the
`purpose and scope have remained fundamentally the same. The survey asks employers to report
`their employment statistics from a weekly pay period for each quarter, including information about
`wage rates and the number of field workers and livestock workers employed. The FLS provides the
`only national data on farm labor employment and wages rates paid by farms, as well as regional and
`seasonal (quarterly) data. Farm labor data collected by other means do not accurately reflect the
`agricultural labor market, and no alternative data set is an adequate substitute for the FLS.
`The uses of the FLS data are many-fold. FLS data are used to set minimum wages for
`6.
`hundreds of thousands of U.S. and foreign workers employed on farms participating in the H-2A
`visa program. These DOL-set wages are calibrated—using FLS data—so that the admission of H-
`2A guestworkers fulfills its statutorily mandated purpose of supplementing the domestic labor
`supply while protecting U.S. workers’ wages from being undercut. FLS data are also necessary to
`administer various farmworker assistance programs and calculate accurate “parity prices” for crops,
`2
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01452-DAD-JLT Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 4 of 26
`
`
`
`prices that undergird numerous government economic programs and private production contracts.
`And many other public and private programs rely on FLS data to understand the farmworker
`population so they can efficiently deliver services.
`The information collected by the FLS is critical to DOL’s administration of the H-2A
`7.
`agricultural guestworker program. FLS data are used to calculate the annual Adverse Effect Wage
`Rates (AEWRs), a minimum wage that must be paid by H-2A program employers. The AEWR is
`the primary wage rate under the H-2A program because it is used to calculate the wages paid to the
`vast majority of U.S. and H-2A visa workers employed at H-2A program employers. Eliminating
`the FLS would eradicate, or at least fundamentally alter, the AEWR. As a result, many employers
`would be allowed to pay farmworkers the federal or state minimum wage, which is often
`substantially less than the AEWR.
`The FLS plays a similarly important role in the administration of several federal aid
`8.
`programs for U.S. farmworkers and foreign guestworkers. The FLS, in tandem with other data
`sources, is used to allocate funding and other resources for the National Farmworker Jobs Program,
`administered by DOL; the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Program, administered by the U.S.
`Department of Health and Human Services; and the programs assisting migrant farmworkers
`administered by the Legal Services Corporation—programs that provide economic, housing,
`professional, educational, and legal assistance to farmworkers. The FLS’s unrivaled data on
`farmworker demographics helps ensure that public funds are efficiently targeted to farmworkers’
`needs.
`
`9. Moreover, USDA relies on FLS data to calculate parity prices for agricultural products
`and the parity index, a data set upon which economic planning and numerous farm support programs
`rely. The wages paid to workers hired by farms is an important component of the parity index and
`has been used in its calculation since 1933. Without these data, the parity index would be less
`representative of the expenses borne by U.S. farms and thus would be a less useful tool for protecting
`food production—and food producers—from market shifts and changes to agricultural prices.
`Protecting the agricultural sector from economic turmoil has been foundational to American
`economic policy for nearly a century, and numerous parties—including workers employed on
`3
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01452-DAD-JLT Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 5 of 26
`
`
`
`farms—would be affected if this protection was destabilized. Since data concerning the wages paid
`by farms are not collected outside of the FLS, it would not be possible to accurately calculate the
`statutory parity index if the FLS was suspended.
`10. Finally, the FLS, in combination with other data sets, provides the detailed
`information about the U.S. farm labor market required or otherwise relied upon by many other
`federal programs and in turn relied upon by states and private entities. For example, the FLS
`provides reliable regional and statewide information that can be combined with other data sources,
`such as the Agricultural Census, to estimate the number of farmworkers that reside in specific areas,
`which DOL relies on to determine whether domestic workers can satisfy farm labor demands.
`DOL’s National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) also uses FLS data to estimate the
`demographics of farmworkers by region and state on a yearly or seasonal basis. And other federal
`entities—including the congressionally mandated 1992 Commission on Agricultural Workers and
`the Congressional Budget Office—have long used the FLS in conjunction with other data sources
`to assess the farmworker population in the United States.
`In sum, the FLS has for over 100 years been a critical and unique component of the
`11.
`government’s efforts to collect data on agricultural labor markets. Those data directly support
`substantial programs administered by both DOL and USDA, and they are used by the federal
`government in combination with other survey data to plan and implement policies and programs for
`farmworkers. In deciding to discontinue the FLS, USDA failed to explain its rationale for abruptly
`ending a century-old survey, and it failed to consider the numerous weighty interests that would be
`impacted by that decision. The decision is therefore arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of
`discretion. Moreover, USDA’s action is procedurally defective under the Administrative Procedure
`Act. For those reasons, USDA’s abrupt decision to discontinue the FLS and cease publication of
`the FLR should be enjoined.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`12. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over this action for review
`of final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, and 28 U.S.C.
`§§ 2201-2202 (declaratory and further relief).
`
`4
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01452-DAD-JLT Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 6 of 26
`
`
`
`13. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because Defendant
`USDA is an agency of the United States and officers acting in their official capacity, no real property
`is involved in this action, plaintiff UFW resides in the District, and the challenged regulations impact
`tens of thousands of farmworkers in the District.
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`14. This action involves legal challenges to final agency action that adversely affects
`Plaintiff UFW, which has its headquarters in Kern County, and thousands of farmworkers living
`and working in Kern County and elsewhere in the Fresno Division. Assignment of this case to the
`Fresno Division is therefore proper under Civil L.R. 120(d), because a significant portion of the
`impacted farmworkers live or work in or adjacent to counties within that division.
`PARTIES
`15. Plaintiff United Farm Workers is the nation’s first successful and largest farmworkers’
`union with a total membership of over 45,000 members across the nation, including farmworkers,
`both U.S. and foreign, employed at employers that participate in the H-2A temporary foreign worker
`program. UFW is headquartered in Keene, California, and maintains offices in Oregon and
`Washington State, and has a substantial membership in numerous other states, including in Idaho,
`Arizona, and New Mexico. UFW’s mission is to support the rights and interests of farmworkers,
`including advocating for wages and workplace safety, and to provide farmworkers with the tools
`that they need to succeed. UFW provides services and information to hundreds of thousands more
`farmworkers through social media efforts and a text membership program that reach farmworkers
`in over thirty states throughout the United States, and through partnerships with La Campesina radio
`network and a network of organizations that provide services to farmworkers, including the UFW
`Foundation, Cesar E. Chavez Foundation, La Union del Pueblo Entero, and the National
`Farmworker Service Center. UFW and its members are particularly interested in farmworker wages.
`UFW’s members have relied on and benefitted from the yearly AEWR wage standards that operated
`as a floor protecting UFW-member farmworkers who work for H-2A program employers.
`Suspension of the FLS and the consequent impairment of the AEWR standard would therefore result
`in substantial decreases to UFW members’ wages. UFW brings this action on behalf of its members
`5
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01452-DAD-JLT Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
`and farmworkers who rely on those AEWR wages and would suffer substantial harm because of
`USDA’s decision.
`16. Plaintiff UFW Foundation, a sister organization to UFW, is a dynamic non-profit
`organization established in 2006 with the core purpose of empowering communities to ensure
`human dignity. The UFW Foundation has staff serving farmworkers and low-income immigrants
`in California, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, and Michigan. It serves over 100,000 farmworkers
`across the United States. Through worker engagement and legislative advocacy, the UFW
`Foundation seeks to advance the rights of farmworkers. In 2019, the UFW Foundation served over
`100,000 farmworkers and low-income community members in California and Arizona. More
`recently, the UFW Foundation has distributed emergency relief to farmworkers during the
`pandemic. At least $11 million in financial assistance is being provided to over 22,000 farmworkers
`in California, Oregon, and Washington by November 2020. The UFW Foundation also helped to
`distribute 189,000 meals and over 27,000 food boxes to California farmworkers in 2020. The UFW
`Foundation’s work and members are directly impacted by increased poverty among farmworkers;
`as such, the UFW Foundation, its members, and farmworkers across the United States will be
`harmed by USDA’s action. The UFW Foundation has also coordinated the distribution of over
`300,000 masks in rural farmworker communities in California, Oregon, Washington, and Michigan
`since March 2020. In 2019, the UFW Foundation led a campaign to submit over 80,000 public and
`farmworker comments regarding the DOL’s proposed rule to enact a series of regulatory changes
`to the H-2A foreign guestworker visa program. At the federal level, the UFW Foundation and its
`farmworker members have educated legislators about the need for basic labor protections for both
`H-2A guestworkers and U.S. farmworkers. The UFW Foundation brings this action on behalf of
`itself and its members and farmworkers who have benefited and will benefit from the services it
`provides, and who would be harmed by USDA’s decision.
`17. Defendant Sonny Purdue is the United States Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary
`is ultimately responsible for all functions of the United States Department of Agriculture, including
`administration of the Farm Labor Survey. He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`6
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01452-DAD-JLT Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 8 of 26
`
`
`
`18. Defendant William Northey is the Under Secretary for Farm Production and
`Conservation at USDA. He is sued in his official capacity.
`19. Defendant United States Department of Agriculture is a federal agency of the United
`States. It is responsible for administering the Farm Labor Survey.
`FACTS
`
`The Farm Labor Survey
`A.
`20. Federal law instructs the Secretary of Agriculture to procure and preserve information
`concerning agriculture, including “by the collection of statistics” and “any other appropriate means
`within his power.”1
`21. Since 1910, the Secretary has satisfied that statutory mandate in part by conducting
`the Agricultural Labor Survey, often referred to as the Farm Labor Survey.2 The FLS collects
`information from farm employers to obtain data on farm employment, hours worked, wages paid,
`and other statistics. Thus, for over 100 years, USDA has consistently employed the FLS to collect
`data about farm labor and wages.3
`22. The FLS is traditionally conducted in April and October. During those months, the
`survey collects wage and employment data for four reference weeks, one in each quarter, from farms
`and ranches with $1,000 or more in annual agricultural sales revenue for all states except Alaska.4
`The FLS samples approximately 35,000 farms and ranches.5 Most FLS data is collected by mail
`and computer-assisted phone interviews, with personal interviews used for some large operations
`and those with special handling arrangements.6 The October 2020 survey is expected to be
`
`
`
`1 7 U.S.C. § 2204(a).
`2 See Daberkow & Whitener, Agricultural Labor Data Sources: An Update 6 (Aug. 1986).
`3 From 1910 to 1974, the FLS was conducted on a monthly basis. From 1974 through the second
`quarter of 1981, as well as from 1984 to the present (with limited exceptions), the survey was
`conducted on a quarterly basis. In 1982 and 1983, the survey was conducted once per year. See
`Daberkow & Whitener, supra, at 6.
`4 USDA NASS, Farm Labor Methodology and Quality Measures (May 28, 2020),
`https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Methodology_and_Data_Quality/Farm_Labor/05_2020/f
`arm_labor_qm.pdf.
`5 Id.
`6 Id.
`
`7
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01452-DAD-JLT Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 9 of 26
`
`
`
`conducted from on or about October 19, 2020 through on or about November 7, 2020, and the FLR
`is expected to be published in or about the week of November 23, 2020.7
`23. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)—USDA’s statistical branch—
`publishes FLS data semiannually in May and November in the FLR. The May report includes
`employment and wage estimates based on January and April reference weeks, and the November
`report includes estimates based on July and October reference weeks.8 The report includes quarterly
`estimates of the number of hired workers and average hours worked per worker during each
`reference week. It also includes quarterly estimates of average hourly wage rates for field workers,
`livestock workers, field and livestock workers combined, and all hired workers (including
`supervisors/managers and other workers).9 The November report also provides annual data based
`on the quarterly estimates.10
`24. For example, the November 2019 FLR disclosed that 809,000 workers were hired
`directly by farm operators during the week of October 6-12, 2019, a 3% increase from the prior
`year. Those workers were paid an average gross wage of $15.02 per hour during that reference
`week, up 4% from October 2018, and the wage rate for field and livestock workers combined was
`$14.21 per hour, up 4% from the 2018 reference week.11 The November 2019 FLR also stated that
`for hired workers the “annual average gross wage rate was $14.91 per hour, up 5 percent from the
`2018 annual average gross wage rate.”12
`25. The most recent FLR, published on May 28, 2020, reported that there were 688,000
`workers hired directly by farm operators during the week of April 12-18, 2020, reflecting a 9%
`increase from April 2019.13 These workers were paid an average gross wage of $15.07 per hour
`
`
`
`7 See id.
`8 See USDA NASS, Farm Labor: Get the Data, https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/
`Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Farm_Labor/ (last visited Oct. 9, 2020).
`9 Id.
`10 Id.
`11 USDA, Farm Labor (Nov. 21, 2019), https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-
`esmis/files/x920fw89s/c821h164m/fq9788943/fmla1119.pdf.
`12 Id.
`13 USDA, Farm Labor (May 28, 2020), https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-
`esmis/files/x920fw89s/n583zg017/dn39xm85z/fmla0520.pdf.
`8
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01452-DAD-JLT Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 10 of 26
`
`
`
`during the April 2020 reference week, up 2% from the prior year. The combined wage rate of field
`and livestock workers was $14.16 per hour, up 3 percent from the April 2019 reference week. For
`the January 2020 reference week, the wage rate for field and livestock workers combined was
`$14.20 per hour, up 3 percent from the January 2019 reference week. These wage increases suggest
`that the 2020 wage rates would have been found to be higher than the corresponding 2019 wage
`rates had USDA conducted the survey in October and published the November FLR.
`USDA’s Decision To Discontinue The Survey
`B.
`26. On September 30, 2020, USDA announced the suspension of October 2020 FLS data
`collection and the cancellation of its November 2020 publication of the biannual FLR.14 USDA did
`not solicit any public comment or employ formal rulemaking procedures.15 This Notice amounts to
`final agency action with respect to the suspension of FLS data collection and FLR publication.
`27. The Notice provides no rationale for suspending the FLS data collection or FLR
`publication.
`28. The Notice acknowledges some of the many uses of FLS data.16 The Notice asserts,
`however, that “USDA has determined the public can access other data sources for the data collected”
`by the FLS. It does not explain how those alternative data sources will replace the unique data that
`FLS collects on farmworkers and agricultural labor markets. Nor does it consider how eliminating
`the FLS will affect the federal programs and services that rely on the FLS data.
`29. The Notice also does not consider how the decision to discontinue the FLS and FLR
`will prevent DOL from computing AEWRs under the H-2A program, or the resulting lower wages
`for both U.S. and H-2A farmworkers. Nor does the Notice address the serious harm that H-2A and
`U.S. farmworkers—who disproportionately work for subsistence wages—will suffer from these
`wage cuts.
`
`
`14 Notice of Revision to the Agricultural Labor Survey and Farm Labor Reports by Suspending
`Data Collection for October 2020, 85 Fed. Reg. 61719 (Sept. 30, 2020).
`15 See id.
`16 See id. (“Number of workers and hours worked have been used to estimate agricultural
`productivity; wage rates have been used in the administration of the H–2A Program and for setting
`Adverse Effect Wage Rates. Survey data have also been used to carry out provisions of the
`Agricultural Adjustment Act.”).
`
`9
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01452-DAD-JLT Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`C.
`
`USDA, DOL, And Others Recognize That The Farm Labor Survey Plays A
`Critical Role In Administering Federal And State Programs
`30. USDA recognizes that the FLS and the agricultural labor statistics the survey provides
`“are an integral part of [NASS’s] primary function of collecting, processing, and disseminating
`current state, regional, and national agricultural statistics.”17 “The Agricultural Labor Survey,” the
`USDA has explained, “is the only timely and reliable source of information on the size of the farm
`worker population.”18
`31. The FLS provides information about farmworker labor and wages that is critical to
`the administration of several federal programs.
` USDA recognizes, for example,
`that
`“[c]omprehensive and reliable agricultural labor data are … needed by [DOL] in the administration
`of the ‘H-2A’ program.”19 Specifically, “[t]he annual weighted average hourly wage rate for field
`and livestock workers combined” collected by the FLS “is currently used as the Adverse Effect
`Wage Rate in administration of the H-2A Program,” “the provision under the Immigration Reform
`and Control Act that allows admission of temporary non-immigrant alien farm workers to perform
`farm labor or services of a temporary or seasonal nature.”20
`32. FLS data is also used to administer several other federal programs that aim to assist
`migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Those programs, which include the National Farmworker Jobs
`Program, the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Program, and the Legal Services Corporation
`Migrant Program, use information about farmworker populations collected by the FLS to allocate
`federal resources.
`33. The farmworker wage rates collected by the FLS also “help [USDA to] measure the
`changes in cost of production of major farm commodities” and “to compute parity prices of farm
`products,” a calculation that the USDA is mandated by statute to publish.21 A number of
`
`
`17 Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, 83 Fed. Reg. 50631, 50632 (Oct. 2, 2018).
`18 Id. (emphasis added).
`19 Id.
`20 USDA NASS, Farm Labor: About the Survey, https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_
`NASS_Surveys/Farm_Labor/ (last visited Oct. 9, 2020).
`21 Id.
`
`10
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01452-DAD-JLT Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 12 of 26
`
`
`
`administrative acts require use of parity prices, including the Agricultural Marketing Agreement
`Act of 1937, the Food and Agricultural Act of 1977, and the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981.22
`34. The FLS also plays an important role in ensuring that the federal government has an
`accurate understanding of the farmworker population in the United States. FLS data, when
`combined with other data sources, offers substantial statistical insights into the farmworker
`community.
`35. Beyond those uses, the FLS provides important information about farm labor that is
`used in a variety of ways. USDA acknowledges that “[t]he employment and wage estimates
`published in the FLR are used by federal, state, and local government agencies; educational
`institutions; farm organizations; and private sector employers of farm labor.”23 For example, the
`FLS is “used by farm worker organizations to help set wage rates and negotiate labor contracts as
`well as determine the need for additional workers and to help ensure federal assistance for farm
`worker assistance programs supported with government funding.”24 USDA likewise recognizes
`that “[t]he data that farm operators provide through NASS’s Agricultural Labor Survey allow
`federal policymakers to base farm labor policies on accurate information.”25
`DOL Relies On Farmworker Wage Information Collected By The FLS
`1.
`To Administer The H-2A Program
`
`36. The H-2A agricultural guest worker program permits agricultural employers to hire
`foreign workers to perform agricultural work on a temporary basis when domestic labor markets
`cannot supply adequate workers at a particular time for a certain job. Employers are only authorized
`
`
`22 USDA NASS, Price Program: History, Concepts, Methodology, Analysis, Estimates, and
`Dissemination – Chapter Four – Parity Prices, Parity Ratio, and Feed Price Ratios (2011),
`https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Prices/Price_Program_Methodolog
`y_v10.pdf.
`23 USDA NASS, Farm Labor: About the Survey, https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_
`NASS_Surveys/Farm_Labor/ (last visited Oct. 9, 2020).
`24 83 Fed. Reg. at 50632.
`25 News Release, USDA Gathers Data About On-Farm Labor (Mar. 25, 2019),
`https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Oregon/Publications/Current_News_Release/Ag%
`20Labor%20Survey_News%20Release.pdf.
`
`11
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01452-DAD-JLT Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 13 of 26
`
`
`
`to hire foreign guestworkers, however, if DOL certifies that the foreign workers’ temporary
`employment “will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United
`States similarly employed.”26 And DOL has recognized, as a general matter, that the introduction
`of foreign guest workers makes wage stagnation or depression likely to occur.27
`37. To avoid adverse effects to U.S. workers’ wages, DOL regulations require that
`employers utilizing the H-2A program pay a wage that is the highest of the Adverse Effect Wage
`Rate (AEWR), the prevailing wage rate, an agreed-upon collective bargaining wage, or the federal
`or state minimum wage.28
`38. Under those regulations, DOL relies primarily on a two-pronged approach based on
`the AEWR and prevailing wage rate to guard against wage depression that would otherwise result
`from the hiring of large numbers of foreign agricultural workers.29 The prevailing wage rate protects
`local wages paid for particular jobs, while the AEWR sets a state-wide wage floor to prevent wage
`disparities over larger areas and all the jobs at H-2A employers in that area. DOL has recognized
`that it is the existence of both the AEWR and prevailing wage rates that ensures that U.S. workers
`are adequately protected from decreased wages caused by an influx of foreign guest workers.30 The
`AEWR, however, is the primary wage rate under the H-2A program because it is higher than the
`other minimum wages in most circumstances.31 As a result, the AEWR determines the wages of
`approximately 92% of the farmworkers at H-2A program employers.32
`39. DOL’s regulations have required it to use the FLS to calculate the AEWR for the H-
`2A program since the program’s inception in 1986, and it had used FLS data for the H-2A’s
`
`
`
`26 8 U.S.C. § 1188(a).
`27 See Temporary Agricultural Employment of H–2A Aliens in the United States, 75 Fed. Reg.
`6884, 6892 (Feb. 12, 2010); Temporary Agricultural Employment of H–2A Aliens in the United
`States, 74 Fed. Reg. 45906, 45911 (Sept. 4, 2009).
`28 See 20 C.F.R. 655.120(a); Temporary Agricultural Employment of H–2A Nonimmigrants in the
`United States, 84 Fed. Reg. 36168, 36265 (July 26, 2019).
`29 See Labor Certification Process for the Temporary Employment of Aliens in Agriculture in the
`United States; Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology, 54 Fed. Reg. 28037, 28040, 28045 (July 5,
`1989).
`30 See 75 Fed. Reg. at 6893.
`31 See 84 Fed. Reg. at 36179.
`32 See id.
`
`12
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01452-DAD-JLT Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 14 of 26
`
`
`
`predecessor program since 1953.33 Because of DOL’s longstanding reliance on the survey, USDA
`conducts the FLS in cooperation with DOL,34 and DOL has funded the FLS since July 2011 pursuant
`to a memorandum of understanding between the agencies.35
`In 2010, DOL recognized that using data other than the FLS to calculate AEWRs
`40.
`“entails a significant risk that U.S. workers may in the future experience wage depression as a result
`of unchecked expansion of the demand for foreign workers.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket