USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 1 of 46
`
`
`Appeal No. 20-1776 (L)
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
`
`
`PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC.; CENTER
`FOR FOOD SAFETY; ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND; FARM
`SANCTUARY; FOOD & WATER WATCH; GOVERNMENT
`ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT; FARM FORWARD; and AMERICAN
`SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS,
`Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants
`
`v.
`NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, INC.,
`
`Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant,
`Cross-Appellee
`
`And
`JOSH STEIN, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of North
`Carolina; and DR. KEVIN GUSKIEWICZ, in his official capacity as Chancellor of
`the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill,
`
`Defendants-Appellants,
`Cross-Appellees.
`
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`For the Middle District of North Carolina
`
`
`BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE UNITED FARM WORKERS OF
`AMERICA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS – APPELLEES
`
`(Counsel listed on inside cover)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 2 of 46
`
`
`MARIO MARTINEZ
`MARTÍNEZ AGUILASOCHO &
`LYNCH, APLC
`P.O. Box 1998
`Bakersfield, CA 93303
`(661) 859-1174
`mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com
`
`
` Counsel for Amicus Curiae
`
`
`
` CHRIS LIM
` LAW OFFICE OF R. CHRIS LIM
` 2046 Hillhurst Avenue, # 13
` Los Angeles, CA 90027-2719
` chris.lim@losfelizlaw.com
`
` Counsel for Amicus Curiae
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 3 of 46
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 29(c)(1), and Local
`
`Rules of Fourth Circuit 26.1, United Farm Workers of America certifies that it does
`
`not have a parent corporation and that no publicly-held corporation owns 10% or
`
`more of its stock.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 4 of 46
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`Counsel for Amicus Curiae United Farm Workers of America certifies the
`
`following pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.4:
`
`1.
`
`The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
`United Farm Workers of America
`
`2.
`
`4.
`
`The name the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the
`real party in interest) represented by me is:
`As indicated in Item 1.
`3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent
`or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are:
`None
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the
`party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are
`expected to appear in this court (and who have not or will not enter an
`appearance in this case) are:
`None
`The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this or
`any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected by
`this court’s decision in the pending appeal:
`None
`Organizational Victims and Bankruptcy Cases: Any information required
`under Fed. R. App. P. 26(1)(b) and 26.1(c).
`None / Not Applicable
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 5 of 46
`
`
`Dated: March 1, 2021
`
`
`
`MARTÍNEZ AGUILASOCHO &
`LYNCH, APLC
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Mario Martinez
`
`By:
`
`MARIO MARTINEZ
`MARTÍNEZ AGUILASOCHO &
`LYNCH, APLC
`P.O. Box 1998
`Bakersfield, CA 93303
`(661) 859-1174
`mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com
`
`
` By: /s/ Chris Lim .
`
`CHRIS LIM
`LAW OFFICE OF R. CHRIS LIM
`2046 Hillhurst Avenue, # 13
`Los Angeles, CA 90027-2719
`chris.lim@losfelizlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Amicus Curiae
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 6 of 46
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................... I
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ................................................................................ I
`STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH FED. R. APP. P. 29(C)(5) ................... 1
`
`CONSENT OF THE PARTIES ................................................................................ 1
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 3
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 3
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 3
`II.
`NORTH CAROLINA’S AG-GAG LAW INTERFERES WITH
`THE ABILITY OF UFW AND THE FARMWORKERS IT
`REPRESENTS TO ENAGE IN WHISTLEBLOWING
`ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................. 4
`A.
`Farmworkers are among the most vulnerable and
`marginalized worker populations in the United States ........................ 4
`B. Whistleblowing is a commonly used and important tool for
`farmworkers ......................................................................................... 8
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`North Carolina’s Ag-Gag Law effectively chills protected
`whistleblowing activities .................................................................... 10
`The Ag-Gag Law’s narrow carveouts do not shield
`farmworkers from liability ................................................................. 13
`UFW faces a threat of liability under subsection (c) if they
`assist whistleblowers .......................................................................... 13
`III. NORTH CAROLINA’S AG-GAG LAW VIOLATES UFW AND
`FARMWORKERS’ FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO
`PETITION GOVERNMENT ....................................................................... 15
`
`E.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 7 of 46
`
`
`IV. NORTH CAROLINA’S AG-GAG LAW INCREASES
`FARMWORKERS’ RISK OF SERIOUS EXPLOITATION AND
`PHYSICAL DANGER IN THE WORKPLACE ......................................... 18
`A.
`Risk of Health and Safety Violations ................................................. 18
`B.
`Risk of Sexual Harassment and Violence .......................................... 22
`C.
`Risk of Labor Trafficking .................................................................. 25
`D.
`Risk of Wage Theft ............................................................................ 27
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 30
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 33
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 8 of 46
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`ALDF v. Wasden,
`878 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................. 9
`
`Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez,
`679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................... 9
`Arredondo, et al. v. Delano Farms Co.,
`No. 1:09-cv-01247 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2009) .................................................... 29
`Beliz v. W.H. McLeod & Sons Packing Co.,
`765 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1985) ............................................................................. 6
`Broadrick v. Oklahoma,
`413 U.S. 601 (1973) ............................................................................................ 4
`California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited,
`404 U.S. 508 (1972) .......................................................................................... 15
`Chavez v. IBP, Inc.,
`No. 01- cv-5093, 2005 WL 6304840 (E.D. Wash. May 16, 2005) ................... 29
`Citizens United. v. Fed. Election Comm’n,
`558 U.S. 310, 336 (2010) .................................................................................. 15
`EEOC v. Giumarra Vineyards Corporation,
`No. 1:09-cv-02255, 2009 WL 8747241 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2009) ................... 23
`Fields v. City of Philadelphia,
`862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 10
`Gable v. Lewis,
`201 F.3d 769 (6th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 15
`Martin v. City of Del City,
`179 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................... 15
`
`v
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 9 of 46
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., et al. v. Josh Stein,
`et al.,
`Case No. 1:16CV25, slip op. (M.D.N.C. June 12, 2020) .................................. 10
`
`Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High School Dist. 205,
`391 U.S. 563 (1968) ............................................................................................ 9
`STATUTES AND RULES
`29 U.S.C. § 206 (“FLSA”) ................................................................................ 26, 27
`29 U.S.C. § 207 ....................................................................................................... 27
`29 U.S.C. §1802 ........................................................................................................ 6
`29 U.S.C. § 1822 ..................................................................................................... 26
`Ag-Gag Law .................................................................................................... passim
`Migrant Seasonal and Worker Protection Act .......................................................... 6
`N.C. Gen Stat. §§ 14-43.11, 14-43.12 .................................................................... 25
`N.C. Gen. Stat. §99A-2(c) ...................................................................................... 13
`N.C. Gen Stat. § 99A-2(d) ...................................................................................... 15
`N.C. Gen. Stat. §99A-2(e) ...................................................................................... 13
`
`North Carolina’s Ag-Gag Law ........................................................................ passim
`RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) ...................................................................................... 25
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`9 C.F.R. § 381.69(a) ............................................................................................... 19
`9 C.F.R. § 381.69(b) ............................................................................................... 19
`40 CFR Part 170 ..................................................................................................... 20
`83 Fed. Reg. 49,048 (Feb. 23, 2018) ...................................................................... 19
`
`vi
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 10 of 46
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`First Amendment ............................................................................................. passim
`
`Blood, Sweat, and Fear: Workers’ Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry
`Plants, Human Rights Watch (Jan. 24, 2005) ................................................... 20
`
`Brooke Rogers, Cazorla v. Koch Foods of Mississippi, LLC: Where
`Discovery Issues Meet Current Immigration Policy (2018), 50 Loy.
`U. Chi. L. J. 459, 477 ......................................................................................... 22
`Christopher Ryon, H-2A Workers Should Not Be Excluded From The
`Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 2 U.
`Md.L.J. Race Relig. Gender & Class 137 (2002) ................................................ 6
`Cultivating Fear, Human Rights Watch (May 15, 2012) ....................... 6, 21, 22, 23
`Dep’t of Labor, A Demographic and Employment Profile of United
`States Farm Workers: Findings from the National Agricultural
`Workers Survey (NAWS)
`2015-2016, Research Report No. 13 (Jan. 2018) ...................................... 5, 7, 22
`Farmworker Justice, Exposed and Ignored: How Pesticides are
`Endangering our Nation’s Farmworkers (2011) ............................................... 18
`
`Farmworker Justice, U.S. Department of Labor Enforcement in
`Agriculture: More Must Be Done to Protect Farmworkers Despite
`Recent Improvements (last visited Feb. 24, 2021) ....................................... 26, 27
`Farmworkers, Facts About North Carolina Farmworkers (2012) ........................... 5
`Farmworkers Justice, Exposed and Ignored: How Pesticides Are
`Endangering our Nation’s Farmworkers (2011) ......................................... 18, 19
`“Farmworkers’ Low Wage Rates Have Risen Modestly; Now
`Congress May Pass a Law to Lower Them,” Farmworker Justice
`(accessed on Feb. 12, 2021) ............................................................................... 12
`
`Fewer Inspectors, Less Enforcement: OSHA Trend Raises Risks for
`Workers, IBEW Media Center (Apr. 24, 2019) ................................................. 16
`
`vii
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 11 of 46
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Hidden Slaves: Forced Labor in the United States, Human Rights
`Center, University of California, Berkeley (Sept. 2004) ............................... 5, 25
`Injustice on Our Plates, Southern Poverty Law Center (Nov. 7, 2020) ............. 7, 21
`
`Jocelyn Sherman, Seven More Dairy Workers Employed at Darigold
`Member Diaries File Complaints Regarding Sexual Harassment
`and Assault (Jun. 24, 2019) ......................................................................... 24, 25
`Jocelyn Sherman, Sexual harassment at Darigold (Aug. 28, 2018 ........................ 24
`Justice, Identifying Challenges to Improve the Investigation and
`Prosecution of State and Local Human Trafficking Cases (April
`2012) .................................................................................................................... 5
`Labor Trafficking, National Human Trafficking Resource Center ........................ 25
`Leah Douglas, “Could the food system face a new Covid-19 wave?”,
`Food & Environment Reporting Network (Oct. 21, 2020) ................................ 11
`Leah Douglas, “Mapping Covid-19 outbreaks in the food system,”
`Food & Environment Reporting Network (Apr. 22, 2020) ............................... 11
`Marianne Levine, Behind the Minimum Wage Fight, a Sweeping
`Failure to Enforce the Law (Feb. 18, 2018) ...................................................... 27
`OSHA Factsheet: OSHA Inspections, Dep’t of Labor ............................................ 16
`OSHA: Federal OSHA Complaint Handling Process, Dep’t of Labor ............ 16, 17
`OSHA Safety and Health Topics: Agricultural Operations, Hazards &
`Controls, Dep’t of Labor ................................................................................... 18
`Polaris Project, 2018 Statistics from the National Human Trafficking
`Hotline ............................................................................................................... 25
`Polaris Project, North Carolina Spotlight 2018 Statistics from the
`National Human Trafficking Hotline ................................................................. 25
`Press Release, EEOC, Giumarra Vineyards Sued by EEOC for Sexual
`Harassment and Retaliation Against Farm Workers (Jan. 13, 2010) ................ 23
`
`viii
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 12 of 46
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Roberto Ferdman, ‘I had to wear Pampers’: The cruel reality the
`people who bring you cheap chicken allegedly endure, The
`Washington Post (May 11, 2016) ........................................................................ 7
`
`Salmonella Initiative Program (SIP) particpants Table; United States
`Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service,
`(last visited Feb. 24, 2021) ................................................................................ 19
`Stefan Milne, Land of Milk and Money: Inside the Wild World of ........................ 14
`Stefan Milne, Land of Milk and Money: Inside the Wild World of
`Washington Dairy, SeattleMet (Feb. 26, 2019), ................................................ 14
`Student Actions with Farmworkers, Facts About North Carolina
`Farmworkers (2021) ............................................................................................ 5
`U.S. Const. amend. I ............................................................................................... 15
`UFW releases photos of Darigold’s sick cows, The Stand (May 2014 .................. 14
`Unsafe at These Speeds, Southern Poverty Law Center (Feb. 28,
`2013) .................................................................................................................... 7
`Weeding Out Abuses, Farmworker Justice and Oxfam America (2010) ................ 27
`
`Whole Foods Market, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 87 (Dec. 24, 2015) ............................. 29
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 13 of 46
`
`
`STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH FED. R. APP. P. 29(C)(5)
`Counsel for the parties did not author this brief, nor have the parties
`
`contributed money intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief. No person
`
`other than amicus curiae and its counsel contributed money that was intended to
`
`fund preparing or submitting this brief.1
`
`
`
`CONSENT OF THE PARTIES
`Pursuant to Fed. R. of App. P. 29(a), counsel for the parties have consented to
`
`the filing of this brief.
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
`Founded in 1962, the United Farm Workers of America (“UFW”) is the
`
`nation’s oldest and largest farmworkers’ union. To promote a just food supply, UFW
`
`works to protect the health and safety of farmworkers from occupational injuries due
`
`to unsafe working conditions, sexual harassment, physical violence, and violations
`
`of labor and human rights. UFW vindicates farmworkers’ rights through, among
`
`other things, assisting in investigating and documenting violations of the law, filing
`
`complaints with state and federal agencies, assisting farmworkers in finding
`
`
`1 Attorneys from Fenwick & West LLP prepared this brief pro bono for United Farm
`Workers of America.
`
`1
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 14 of 46
`
`
`attorneys to represent them in civil litigation against agricultural employers,
`
`assisting in organizing farmworkers for collective-bargaining purposes, educating
`
`the public regarding farm-related issues of public concern, and engaging with
`
`retailers regarding social-justice, food safety, and health issues affecting the food
`
`supply chain. UFW has thousands of members, many of whom are highly vulnerable
`
`migrant and seasonal farmworkers, and serves farmworkers across the country,
`
`including in North Carolina.
`
`North Carolina General Statute § 99A-2 (the “Ag-Gag Law”) threatens the
`
`First Amendment rights of farmworkers in North Carolina and chills the ability of
`
`UFW and the farmworkers UFW represents from investigating, documenting, and,
`
`if necessary, filing formal complaints to vindicate their rights. The Ag-Gag Law also
`
`stifles the ability of UFW and farmworkers to investigate and document concomitant
`
`matters in the public interest, such as food safety and animal welfare. Accordingly,
`
`UFW and the farmworkers it represents have a significant interest in the outcome of
`
`this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 15 of 46
`
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`UFW joins the arguments of Plaintiffs-Appellees and other amici curiae that
`
`the Ag-Gag Law violates the First Amendment. In this brief, UFW shows how the
`
`Ag-Gag Law interferes with the ability of UFW and farmworkers to engage in
`
`protected whistleblowing activities and document evidence necessary for
`
`farmworkers to vindicate their constitutional rights. The Ag-Gag Law violates
`
`UFW’s and farmworkers’ First Amendment right to seek legal redress for unlawful
`
`workplace conditions. The Ag-Gag Law is facially invalid because it is
`
`unconstitutionally overbroad.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Farmworkers are essential to the production and distribution of food. But
`
`lackluster enforcement of key regulations, not to mention isolation, educational and
`
`language barriers, and immigration status leave farmworkers uniquely vulnerable to
`
`employer mistreatment and exploitation. UFW helps farmworkers identify labor law
`
`and health and safety violations and helps them enforce their rights. UFW also assists
`
`farmworkers in self-organization and collective bargaining and provides education
`
`to the public and retailers about the dangers to public health and welfare associated
`
`with unsafe work conditions.
`
`North Carolina’s Ag-Gag Law subjects farmworkers to harsh civil penalties
`
`if they engage in protected speech such as investigating and documenting evidence
`
`3
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 16 of 46
`
`
`of unsafe working conditions and unethical or illegal employer conduct. For
`
`example, the Ag-Gag law provides for exemplary damages of $5,000 per day as well
`
`as the award of costs and attorneys’ fees against farmworkers who merely capture
`
`photographic evidence of health and safety violations in their place of employment
`
`and provide them to the press. For this reason, among others, it is overbroad and
`
`violates the First Amendment rights of UFW and the farmworkers it represents. and
`
`further highlights the Law’s unconstitutional overbreadth. UFW and farmworkers
`
`are but one example of the parties that the overbreadth doctrine seeks to protect:
`
`those not before the court for whom the very existence of the statute restricts their
`
`constitutionally protected speech or expression. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413
`
`U.S. 601, 612 (1973).
`
`II. NORTH CAROLINA’S AG-GAG LAW INTERFERES WITH THE
`ABILITY OF UFW AND THE FARMWORKERS IT REPRESENTS
`TO ENAGE IN WHISTLEBLOWING ACTIVITIES
`A.
`Farmworkers are among the most vulnerable and marginalized
`worker populations in the United States
`Farmworkers face formidable impediments in enforcing their rights under
`
`federal and state statutes. According to the Department of Labor, approximately 76
`
`percent of farmworkers were born outside the United States, and 30 percent of
`
`4
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 17 of 46
`
`
`farmworkers do not speak any English.2 In North Carolina, 94 percent of
`
`farmworkers are native Spanish speakers.3
`
`Farmworkers, on average, have only an eighth-grade education.4
`
`Approximately 19 percent are foreign migrant workers, and 49 percent are
`
`undocumented immigrants.5 As a result, when farmworkers do submit formal
`
`complaints, authorities often discount or disregard them, viewing them as complicit
`
`because of their immigration status.6 And even foreign migrant workers who come
`
`to the United States under the H-2A guest worker program could face deportation,
`
`as they are authorized to work for only the specific employer on their H-2A visas
`
`and cannot seek other employment if they are fired for complaining about work
`
`
`2 Dep’t of Labor, A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farm
`Workers: Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2015-
`2016,
`Research
`Report No.
`13
`(Jan.
`2018),
`at
`2,
`10,
`https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/naws/pdfs/NAWS_Research_Report_
`13.pdf.
`3 Student Actions with Farmworkers, Facts About North Carolina Farmworkers
`(2012), at 1, https://saf-unite.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/nc-farmworkers-
`2012.pdf.
`4 See NAWS, supra note 2, at 12.
`5 Id. at 52. UFW’s own estimates place the undocumented farmworker population at
`much higher rates.
`6 See National Institute of Justice, Identifying Challenges to Improve the
`Investigation and Prosecution of State and Local Human Trafficking Cases (April
`2012), at 184, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/25526/412593-
`Identifying-Challenges-to-Improve-the-Investigation-and-Prosecution-of-State-
`and-Local-Human-Trafficking-Cases.PDF.
`
`5
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 18 of 46
`
`
`conditions.7 Complicating matters, the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
`
`Protection Act (MSPA), the only federal law allowing farmworkers to sue in court
`
`for violations of their rights, specifically excludes H2-A guest workers from its
`
`coverage, thus severely limiting their right to seek the assistance of the courts. See
`
`29 U.S.C. §§1802(8)(B)(ii) and 10(B)(ii).8
`
`These barriers are exacerbated as farmworkers have no or limited access to
`
`resources for vindicating their rights. Fear of retaliation—in the form of termination,
`
`harassment, or violence—strongly discourages farmworkers from reporting
`
`violations by their employers. See, e.g., Beliz v. W.H. McLeod & Sons Packing Co.,
`
`765 F.2d 1317, 1332 (5th Cir. 1985) (“[F]arm workers who attempt to assert their
`
`rights must overcome a general background of fear and intimidation caused by the
`
`widespread practice of retaliation against those who complain about violations.”).
`
`Retaliation is a formidable threat, as few safety nets exist for those who lose their
`
`jobs. Only 39 percent of farmworkers are eligible for unemployment insurance, and
`
`
`7 See Hidden Slaves: Forced Labor In The United States, Human Rights Center,
`University
`of
`California,
`Berkeley
`(Sept.
`2004),
`at
`16
`http://www.freetheslaves.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hidden-Slaves.pdf
`(hereinafter, “Hidden Slaves”).
`8 See also Christopher Ryon, H-2A Workers Should Not be Excluded From The
`Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 2 U. Md.L.J. Race Relig.
`Gender
`&
`Class
`137
`(2002).
`Available
`at:
`http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/rrgc/vol2/iss1/8.
`
`6
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 19 of 46
`
`
`fewer than 50 percent of farmworkers are eligible for workers’ compensation.9
`
`Sixteen percent of farmworkers live in employer-provided housing; for them, losing
`
`their job could mean immediate homelessness or housing insecurity for their entire
`
`family.10
`
`These factors leave agricultural workers in a “climate of fear,”11 feeling
`
`“disposable,” and often reluctant to report injuries or health or safety violations.12
`
`They fear being fired for work-related injuries or even for seeking medical treatment
`
`from someone other than the company nurse or doctor.13 One report describes
`
`supervisors discouraging workers from reporting work-related injuries, even if the
`
`worker are in constant pain.14 Several news outlets have covered the common
`
`
`(May 15, 2012), at 18
`9 Cultivating Fear, Human Rights Watch
`https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0512ForUpload_1.pdf.
`10 NAWS, supra note 2, at ii.
`11 Unsafe at These Speeds, Southern Poverty Law Center (Feb. 28, 2013), at 4, 38,
`https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/Unsafe_at_These_Speeds_web.pdf.
`12 Injustice on Our Plates, Southern Poverty Law Center (Nov. 7, 2010), at 23,
`https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_files/downloads/publicatio
`n/Injustice_on_Our_Plates.pdf (reporting based on interviews of approximately 150
`women who were either undocumented or had spent time in the U.S. as
`undocumented immigrants, and who worked in the U.S. food industry in Arkansas,
`California, Florida, Iowa, New York or North Carolina.).
`13 Unsafe at These Speeds, supra note 11, at 15.
`14 Id. at 4-5.
`
`7
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 20 of 46
`
`
`practice of poultry processing facilities denying farmworkers restroom breaks—
`
`forcing them to urinate and defecate while standing, or wear diapers to work.15
`
`The vulnerability of farmworkers underscores
`
`the critical need for
`
`organizations like UFW. Its work vindicates worker and human rights by providing
`
`aid in investigating and documenting workplace violations and highlighting data to
`
`support petitions and legislation for legal redress.
`
`B. Whistleblowing is a commonly used and important tool for
`farmworkers
`Like Plaintiffs-Appellees, UFW and the farmworkers it represents routinely
`
`document evidence of conditions harmful to the employment relationship, and
`
`harmful to public safety and in violation of the public interest. Photography and
`
`recording are standard practices in farmworker advocacy and are used to document
`
`violations of farmworkers’ rights and other illegal or unethical employer conduct.
`
`Photos, videos, and audio recordings are critical tools in bringing to light employer
`
`misconduct because they increase the credibility of whistleblower claims and are
`
`more likely to generate higher levels of public attention. Without the ability to
`
`document such activity, many valid employee claims of misconduct will lack the
`
`credibility required to spur investigation and change, particularly in light of the fact
`
`
`15 See, e.g., Roberto Ferdman, ‘I had to wear Pampers’: The cruel reality the people
`who bring you cheap chicken allegedly endure, The Washington Post (May 11,
`2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/11/i-had-to-wear-
`pampers-many-poultry-industry-workers-allegedly-cant-even-take-bathroom-breaks/.
`
`8
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 21 of 46
`
`
`that the whistleblowers reporting this misconduct are members of a vulnerable
`
`population, as discussed supra. It is therefore crucial that whistleblowing reports are
`
`as comprehensive and detailed as possible, ideally through the inclusion of pictures
`
`and/or videos.
`
`There is inherent value in exposing employers’ unethical or illegal behavior
`
`to public scrutiny. Conduct harmful to the public interest, including threats to human
`
`health and safety, must not remain hidden, else employers engaged in such conduct
`
`will have little incentive to change their practices. UFW’s and farmworkers’
`
`whistleblowing activities fall squarely within the realm of speech protected by the
`
`First Amendment and promote its core value of ensuring “[t]he public interest in
`
`having free and unhindered debate on matters of public importance.” Pickering v.
`
`Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High School Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563, 573 (1968).
`
`First Amendment protection extends to the predicate conduct of gathering
`
`information, for example, via the acts of recording, capturing a photo, etc. As the
`
`District Court correctly noted, several courts have recognized that making an audio
`
`or video recording or taking a picture falls within the scope of the First Amendment
`
`because such actions are “either expressive conduct warranting First Amendment
`
`protection” (citing Animal Leg. Def. Fund v. Wasden, 878 F.3d 1184, 1203(9th Cir.
`
`2018) (“[t]he act of recording is itself an inherently expressive activity”)) or
`
`“conduct essentially preparatory to speech” (citing Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill.
`
`9
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 20-1776 Doc: 39-1 Filed: 03/01/2021 Pg: 22 of 46
`
`
`v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012) (“The act of making an audio or
`
`audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment’s
`
`guarantee of speech … as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting
`
`recording.”)). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., et al. v. Josh Stein,
`
`et al., Case No. 1:16CV25, slip op. at 22-23 (M.D.N.C. June 12, 2020); see also
`
`Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 336 (2010) ( “Laws enacted
`
`to control or suppress speech may operate at different points in the speech process”);
`
`Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353, 358 (3d Cir. 2017) (“The First
`
`Amendment protects actual photos, videos, and recordings … and for this protection
`
`to have meaning the Amendment must also protect the act of creating that
`
`material.”).
`
`C. North Carolina’s Ag-Gag Law effectively chills protected
`whistleblowing activities
`North Carolina’s Ag-Gag Law disincentivizes the essential investigation and
`
`documentation of workplace conditions, chilling farmworker speech by creating
`
`civil liability for employees who engage in protected whistl