Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Majority - Greenaway, District Judge

No, the plaintiffs' allegations do not sufficiently plead the existence of at least two underlying predicate acts to support a substantive RICO claim under § 1962(c), nor a RICO conspiracy claim under § 1962(d). The allegations for immigration-related predicate acts (transporting, harboring, encouraging, and hiring aliens brought into the U.S.) are insufficient because they lack facts showing Wal-Mart's direct involvement in furthering illegal presence beyond mere employment or specific knowledge of how aliens were brought into the U.S. The involuntary servitude claim fails because threats of deportation, while serious, still leave employees with a choice and do not equate to being held without any way to avoid continued service as defined by United States v. Kozminski. Furthermore, the mail and wire fraud and money laundering claims lack the particularity required under Rule 9(b), as they are vague and conclusory, failing to identify specific transactions, misrepresentations, or Wal-Mart's concrete conduct. The court grants dismissal without prejudice for these claims, allowing plaintiffs to amend. No, "recent immigrants, including undocumented persons" do not constitute a protected class under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The Supreme Court and Third Circuit jurisprudence, particularly United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Scott and Lake v. Arnold, indicate that § 1985(3) primarily addresses race-based animus or classes with immutable traits for which individuals bear no responsibility and have a history of pervasive discrimination with an emerging societal rejection. Undocumented status, as defined by the Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe, is considered a "voluntary action" for which individuals bear "responsibility," thus failing the "immutability" criterion for a protected class under Section 1985(3). The court dismisses this claim with prejudice. Yes, undocumented workers are not barred from seeking relief for unpaid minimum wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for work already performed. The Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, which denied back pay to undocumented workers for work not performed under the NLRA, is distinguishable because FLSA claims seek compensation for work actually performed. The FLSA's definition of "employee" is broad, encompassing "any individual," and the Department of Labor's interpretation supports coverage for undocumented workers, consistent with Patel v. Quality Inn S. Furthermore, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts, under the "economic reality" test, to infer that Wal-Mart acted as an "employer" or "joint employer" with its contractors, given allegations of Wal-Mart's control over working conditions, wages, and the integral nature of janitorial services to its business. Plaintiffs have also sufficiently pleaded claims for both minimum wage and overtime violations, as Wal-Mart's own calculations indicated some plaintiffs were paid "near" minimum wage or deprived of "some" overtime. The court denies Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss this claim. Yes, plaintiffs have stated a claim for false imprisonment under New Jersey law by alleging that Wal-Mart intentionally engaged in a widespread, systematic practice of locking janitors into their stores during shifts against their will, causing them physical and emotional harm. New Jersey law defines false imprisonment as constraint of movement by force or threats inducing reasonable apprehension of force, as established in Earl v. Winne. The allegations that workers were physically locked in stores against their will, preventing escape through any reasonable means, are sufficient to satisfy the elements of this claim at the motion to dismiss stage. The court denies Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss this claim.