Washington v. GEO Grp., Inc.
283 F. Supp. 3d 967 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal law does not preempt a state's minimum wage law concerning detainee labor at a private immigration detention facility unless there is clear congressional intent to displace state law, and a state has `parens patriae` authority to enforce its minimum wage laws to protect the economic well-being of its residents, including detainees.
Facts:
- Since 2005, The GEO Group, Inc. (Defendant), a private corporation, has owned and operated the Northwest Detention Center, a 1,575-bed immigration detention facility in Tacoma, Washington.
- United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contracts with The GEO Group, Inc. for the detention of adult individuals awaiting resolution of immigration matters.
- The GEO Group, Inc. utilizes detainees to perform a wide range of services within the facility, including laundry, cleaning, buffing floors, and painting, under a Voluntary Work Program.
- For their labor, The GEO Group, Inc. compensates detainees under this program at a rate of $1 per day, or in some instances, with additional or improved food.
- The State of Washington alleges that The GEO Group, Inc. has benefited from this labor since 2005 without paying the State's minimum wage, which is currently $11 per hour.
- The contract between The GEO Group, Inc. and ICE requires that detainee labor adheres to ICE's Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) on Voluntary Work Program, which states that compensation is "at least $1.00 (USD) per day."
- Federal statute 8 U.S.C. § 1555(d) authorizes congressional appropriations for detainee work allowances at a rate "as may be specified... in the appropriation Act involved," but Congress has not specified a rate for detainee work since fiscal year 1979.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Washington filed a complaint against The GEO Group, Inc. in federal district court, alleging unjust enrichment and violations of Washington's Minimum Wage Act.
- The GEO Group, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting four primary grounds: federal preemption, lack of state authority to sue, failure to state a claim for unjust enrichment and violations of the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and that the State's claims were barred by unclean hands and laches.
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 federal law, specifically the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) and related federal interests in immigration detention, preempt the State of Washington's minimum wage laws as applied to detainees working for a private contractor in a federal immigration detention facility, and does the State of Washington have `parens patriae` authority to bring such a lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Robert J. Bryan
No, federal law does not preempt the State of Washington's minimum wage laws as applied to detainees working for The GEO Group, Inc., and yes, the State of Washington has `parens patriae` authority to bring such a lawsuit. The court found no evidence of congressional intent, either express or implied, sufficient to overcome the presumption against preemption, especially in an area of traditional state prerogative like labor standards. Regarding express preemption, the court determined that IRCA § 1324a(h)(2) preempts state sanctions for employing unauthorized aliens, not for the failure to pay minimum wage regardless of immigration status. The Washington Minimum Wage Act (WMA) does not mention immigration status, focusing solely on compensation. On field preemption, the court concluded that Congress has not occupied the field of detainee wages, as evidenced by its silence on a specified rate for detainee work since 1979 under 8 U.S.C. § 1555(d). The ICE Voluntary Work Program, being merely an agency policy, lacks preemptive force without evidence that ICE followed the necessary rulemaking formalities (e.g., Executive Order 13132, APA). Arguments for conflict and obstacle preemption were dismissed as premature, relying on factual determinations beyond the scope of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Furthermore, the court affirmed the State of Washington's `parens patriae` authority to bring the lawsuit. The State satisfied the three elements: (1) it demonstrated a `quasi-sovereign interest` in the economic health and well-being of its residents, including detainee-workers, by enforcing minimum wage laws; (2) it showed an interest apart from the interests of private parties by seeking broad declaratory and injunctive relief that individual detainees could not (e.g., if no longer detained); and (3) it alleged injury to a `sufficiently substantial segment` of its population, given the facility's capacity of 1,575 individuals. The court also held that the unjust enrichment claim was plausible, inferring involuntary participation given the detention context, and found no authority requiring an allegation of 'reasonable expectation' of minimum wage. Lastly, the court determined that detainees are not exempt from the WMA because the statutory exception (RCW 49.46.010(3)(k)) applies only to residents of 'state, county, or municipal' detention facilities, explicitly excluding federal facilities, and exceptions are narrowly construed under Washington law. Equitable defenses of unclean hands and laches were also deemed inappropriate for a 12(b)(6) dismissal.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strong presumption against federal preemption in areas of traditional state police power, such as labor standards, emphasizing that Congress's intent to preempt must be clear. It clarifies that federal agency policy, without formal rulemaking adhering to established procedures like the APA and Executive Orders, does not carry preemptive force. The decision also affirms a state's broad `parens patriae` authority to protect the economic welfare of its residents, even non-citizens in privately-operated federal facilities, provided the state's interest is distinct from individual claims and affects a substantial population segment. This ruling provides a significant precedent for states seeking to apply their labor laws to workers in privately-operated federal facilities and will likely influence similar litigation regarding immigration detention conditions.
