Aimable v. Long & Scott Farms
1994 WL 144618, 20 F.3d 434 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the 'economic reality' test for joint employment in agriculture, a farm is not a joint employer of laborers provided by a contractor when the farm's involvement is limited to broad agricultural decisions, and the contractor exclusively exercises control over hiring, firing, supervision, payroll, and setting pay rates.
Facts:
- Long & Scott Farms, Inc. ('Long & Scott'), a 1,200-acre vegetable farm, contracted with John Miller, a farm labor contractor, to supply laborers for its harvests.
- This business relationship between Long & Scott and Miller had been in place for 25 years.
- Miller recruited laborers, provided many with housing at his labor camp, and transported them to Long & Scott's fields.
- Long & Scott paid Miller a flat, pre-negotiated rate for each quantity of produce picked.
- Miller, in turn, independently determined the laborers' compensation, paying most on a piece-rate basis.
- Long & Scott's owner, Frank Scott, made the high-level agricultural decisions, such as which crops to plant and when and which fields to harvest.
- Miller and his staff exclusively handled the direct supervision, hiring, firing, and payroll for the laborers.
- Although Long & Scott was Miller's largest client, it accounted for less than half of his total revenue, as he also supplied laborers to other farms.
Procedural Posture:
- 206 migrant farm workers (Appellants) filed two consolidated lawsuits in the U.S. District Court against John Miller and Long & Scott Farms, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSAWPA).
- After discovery, the workers and Long & Scott filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted the workers' motion in part, holding that Miller was their employer.
- The district court denied the workers' motion as it pertained to Long & Scott, concurrently granting Long & Scott's cross-motion for summary judgment, finding it was not a joint employer.
- A final judgment was entered in favor of Long & Scott.
- The workers (Appellants) appealed the summary judgment in favor of Long & Scott (Appellee) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a farm qualify as a 'joint employer' of migrant laborers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act when it contracts with a farm labor contractor who directly hires, supervises, pays, and controls the laborers, even though the farm makes the ultimate agricultural decisions about what and when to harvest?
Opinions:
Majority - Tjoflat, Chief Judge
No. A farm does not qualify as a joint employer where the economic reality demonstrates that the laborers are economically dependent solely upon the farm labor contractor. The court's analysis focused on the five regulatory factors for determining joint employment and found they all weighed against finding Long & Scott to be an employer. First, Long & Scott's 'control' was limited to general agricultural decisions (which fields to harvest), not specific employment decisions like hiring individuals or assigning tasks, which Miller handled exclusively. Second, any supervision by Long & Scott was 'de minimis,' with Miller and his crew providing all meaningful oversight. Third, Long & Scott had no power to determine pay rates; it paid Miller a flat fee, and Miller alone decided how to compensate the workers. The fourth and fifth factors, the right to hire/fire and preparation of payroll, were undisputedly handled solely by Miller. The court rejected other non-regulatory factors as irrelevant because they were designed to distinguish employees from independent contractors, not to determine who among potential employers is the actual employer in a joint employment context. The two relevant non-regulatory factors—ownership of the work facilities and the work being integral to the business—were insufficient to outweigh the five core regulatory factors showing Miller's sole control.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'joint employer' analysis under MSAWPA and FLSA by prioritizing the five regulatory factors that focus on direct control over employment conditions. The court's rejection of other factors as irrelevant to the joint-employment question creates a more defined safe harbor for agricultural businesses using labor contractors. The ruling establishes that farms can make essential, high-level agricultural decisions without incurring employer liability, provided they delegate all direct personnel management—hiring, supervision, pay, and firing—to the contractor. This potentially narrows the path for farmworkers to hold the farm itself, often the more financially stable entity, liable for labor law violations committed by contractors.
