Reyes v. Remington Hybrid Seed Co., Inc.
495 F.3d 403 | Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | 2007
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A seed company was held jointly liable for wage violations committed by a labor recruiter who hired migrant workers for detasseling and rogueing work. The court found that because the work was integral to the company's business, performed on its property with its equipment and supervision, the company was a joint employer responsible for wages and working conditions. This matters to construction subcontractors because it shows that general contractors can be held liable for labor law violations by their subs, even if a separate entity recruits and manages workers.
Key Takeaways
- •If work is core to your business and happens on your property under your supervision, you may be a joint employer liable for wage violations by labor brokers or subcontractors—even if you didn't directly hire workers.
- •Ensure your subcontracts and labor agreements clearly define who is responsible for wages, housing, transportation, and compliance with FLSA and AWPA to avoid being dragged into wage claims.
- •Document that subcontractors have independent business capacity (their own equipment, ability to work for others, control over operations) or you risk being deemed a joint employer and liable for their violations.
Remington must be deemed the workers' employer for events that occurred in the fields.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I be held liable for wage violations if a subcontractor or labor recruiter fails to pay workers?
Yes, if the work is core to your business, performed on your property with your equipment and supervision, courts may hold you jointly liable as an employer. To protect yourself, use clear subcontracts that assign wage and compliance responsibility, verify the subcontractor has independent business capacity, and maintain documentation showing the subcontractor controls hiring and pay decisions.
Related Cases
Gall v. United States
Appellate courts must review all sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard regardless of whether they fall inside or outside the Guidelines range, and cannot require extraordinary circumstances to justify sentences outside the range.
Piotrowski v. City of Houston
Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of official policy as the moving force; isolated employee misconduct insufficient, and equal protection claim time-barred.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
Federal race-based classifications must be analyzed under strict scrutiny regardless of whether they benefit or burden minorities, and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection obligation equals the Fourteenth Amendment's.
Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville
An association of contractors has standing to challenge a minority set-aside ordinance without proving any member would have won a contract absent the ordinance; the injury is denial of equal competitive opportunity, not loss of a specific contract.
In Re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.
The Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act is civil, not criminal, and does not violate due process even when applied to incompetent defendants.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.