IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SKAGIT

Transcription

1 HONORABLE SUSAN K. COOK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SKAGIT 0 FAMILIAS UNIDAS POR LA JUSTICIA, Plaintiffs, vs. SAKUMA BROTHERS FARMS, INC., Defendant. No (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 0 Plaintiff Familias Unidas por la Justica filed this suit seeking interim and permanent injunctive relief under the little Norris-LaGuardia Act ( LNLA ) and the Washington Law Against Discrimination ( WLAD ). Plaintiff alleges the following to be unlawful: Defendant s hiring practices, Defendant s rules about eligibility for on-farm housing, and part of Defendant s employment application concerning employee conflict of interest with Defendant (the yellow dog provision). On May, 0, the Court granted a temporary restraining order concerning the hiring practices. On June, 0 the Court () determined that the issue of alleged yellow dog provisions in Defendant s employment application would be resolved at a later time, () entered a stipulated order requiring affirmative action by Defendant s concerning its hiring practices regarding Plaintiff s members and () conducted a bench trial on the merits of the Defendant s recent policy change to deny housing to the spouses and families of workers in its seasonal labor MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

2 0 0 camp housing. On June, 0, the Court took live testimony from witnesses for both parties and admitted exhibits offered by the Plaintiff into evidence. The Defendant offered no exhibits, and none were admitted into evidence. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence admitted at trial along with oral argument from counsel, the Court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT:. Sakuma Bros. Farms, Inc. has operated as a berry farming operation in the Skagit Valley for over 0 years.. Ryan Sakuma is the president of the company. He is in charge of overseeing the crops, and making sure Sakuma hits its budgets, and of the picking the crops, including management of the farm s workforce.. Steve Sakuma is part owner, and an officer, of the company and has complete oversight as to what goes on at the company.. During the summer of 0, Familias Unidas por la Justicia was formed to improve the wages and working conditions of farm workers at Sakuma Bros. Farms.. At the time it was formed, Familias had 0 members, and the group has grown since then to over 0 members.. Approximately 0% of the members of Familias have spouses, and a large majority of those have children. Many of these members with families have worked at Sakuma and lived in Sakuma s housing for many years.. Approximately 0 percent of Familias members are migrant farm workers who After initially demanding a jury trial, the Defendant agreed to a bench trial as the Plaintiff only seeks injunctive MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

3 0 0 permanently reside in California or elsewhere and travel to Washington each year to work during the berry harvest at Sakuma.. In 0, members of Familias engaged in strikes and marches for the purpose of obtaining a collective bargaining agreement with Sakuma.. In 0, members of Familias also set up a Facebook page to make their activities known in the community. 0. In 0, Sakuma workers told Ryan Sakuma that they had concerns about their working conditions.. In 0, Sakuma workers told Ryan Sakuma that they were not appearing for work because they objected to working conditions at the company. Many Sakuma workers engaged in strike activity over the course of the berry season for the purpose of obtaining a collective bargaining agreement with Sakuma.. In 0, Ryan Sakuma observed marches in which his employees participated.. Since 0, Ryan Sakuma has been aware of the Familias Facebook page and that members of Familias were talking to the press and community groups about Sakuma s employment practices.. In 0, Steve Sakuma was aware of strikes by his employees.. Since 0, Ryan and Steve Sakuma have been aware of a boycott effort of Sakuma products conducted by its workers.. In 0, the membership of Familias elected a leadership committee and a President and Vice-President of Familias, and sent representatives to negotiate with Sakuma relief, which is an equitable remedy tried directly to the court. MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

4 0 0 management to improve the terms and conditions of their employment.. Sakuma engaged in meetings with Familias representatives in the summer of 0 where wages were discussed. Ramon Torres, President of Familias, and Felimon Pineda, Vice-President of Familias, were present in the meetings.. On August, 0, Sakuma reached a non-retaliation agreement with Familias.. In September, 0, Felimon Pineda and Familias sued Sakuma in Skagit County Superior Court to obtain injunctive relief to halt interference with their concerted activity. 0. On September, 0, this Court entered a temporary restraining order against Sakuma requiring the company to remove security guards from the labor camps. The order found the guards presence gave Sakuma an opportunity to surveil the workers protected concerted activity and that would intimidate and chill members of Familias from exercising their rights under the LNLA.. The court s September, 0 temporary restraining order also restrained Sakuma from following the plaintiffs or workers or community supporters on public highways or elsewhere because that unlawfully deterred protected concerted activity by Familias members.. On October, 0, this Court entered a final order restraining Sakuma from having security guards in the labor camps and from following workers and supporters on public roads for the remainder of the 0 harvest season.. In the spring of 0, in response to Sakuma s proposed use of H-A foreign workers, Familias collected letters from over 0 of its members stating that they MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

5 0 0 wanted to return to their jobs and work at Sakuma in 0.. Familias caused the first batch of letters to be delivered to Sakuma on April, 0, the second batch on April, 0 and the third batch on April, 0.. Familas workers acted in concern to create and deliver these letters. Ryan Sakuma was aware of the arrival of the letters and the stated intention of the workers who signed them to return to work at Sakuma in 0.. On April, 0, the same date of the delivery of the last batch of Familias letters to Sakuma, Ryan Sakuma sent a letter that he authorized to workers saying there was no housing at Sakuma for non-workers. Sakuma sent the letter to all workers Sakuma deemed eligible for work who had worked in prior years.. The letter stated, Beginning this year, you must be at least years old at the time of hire. The letter was sent to all workers Sakuma deemed to be eligible for work in 0 and who had worked for Sakuma in prior years.. The same April, 0 letter informed former workers that there was a change in the housing camp policy. Beginning in 0, Sakuma Bros. Farms will be providing housing to workers only. This means that housing for non-working family members will no longer be available. Cabins will be designated as Male Only of Female Only. We do not have separate housing for married couples.... We are providing you with this information so that if you are planning to work for Sakuma Bros. Farms in the 0 season and you intend to bring your family, you can make housing arrangements for your family members elsewhere. (emphasis in original).. On April, 0, Sakuma sent a letter to former workers advising them that they MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

6 0 0 had an unexcused absence of more than five () consecutive work days during your employment at Sakuma Bros. Farms last season, you were reported as abandoned to the Department of Labor.... As a result of your abandonment, you did not complete the contract period and are ineligible for rehire by Sakuma Bros. Farms. 0. Sakuma s April and April letters were sent with the intent to retaliate against Familias members because of their continued protected activities.. On May, 0, this Court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining Sakuma: (a.) [f]rom barring Familias Unidas por la Justicia members from employment due to absences occurring during the 0 strikes; (b.) [t]o inform Familias Unidas por la Justicia members immediately that workers are not barred from employment due to absences accrued during the 0 strikes; (c.) [f]rom interfering or retaliating against Plaintiffs due to the exercise of their rights under chapter. RCW and chapter.0 RCW. Sakuma did not inform the Court that it had complied with this order.. On June, 0, this Court entered a stipulated order finding that Sakuma has informed Familias Unidas por la Justicia members that they are ineligible for work in 0 because they missed five consecutive days of work due to 0 strike activity.. The June stipulated order finds that Sakuma s activities have the effect of interfering with the exercise of rights protected by chapter. RCW and requires Sakuma to inform Familias Unidas por la Justicia members immediately (within one week of the entry of the order containing these stipulations) that workers are not barred from employment due to absences accrued during the 0 strikes and to consider Familias members eligible to apply for employment and to make employment decisions without regard to their participation in any protected concerted MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

7 0 0 activity, including strikes, boycott activity, participation in or communication about any labor disputes, or any other protected concerted activity for mutual aid and protection. Prior to 0, Sakuma had a long-standing policy of providing housing to workers with spouses and workers with families with children, even if the children were not employed during the harvest season. The housing provided by Sakuma is used for the activities of daily life, including meal preparation, bathing and sleeping.. Sakuma understood that the provision of housing to the spouses and families of its workers allowed their workers to meet the economic challenges they faced and allowed them to achieve their goals.. Sakuma also knew that providing housing to the spouses and families of its workers operated as an incentive program to bring in the labor [it] required.. Because many members of Familias cannot afford to pay rent in two places during the harvest season, they depend economically on the housing provided by Sakuma. Without free housing at Sakuma, many families would not be able to afford to work at Sakuma during the berry harvest.. There is limited housing for migrant farm workers in the Skagit County area. The Skagit County Housing Authority has a five-year waiting list for farm-worker housing it operates. The Housing Authority a vacancy rate of less than % in the farm-worker housing it operates.. A group of service providers including the Skagit County Housing Authority has met to attempt to plan for housing of farm worker families who will not be housed at MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

8 0 0 Sakuma this year. That group is waiting on the results of a letter sent to the Governor about the issue. 0. In 0 and 0, and 0 the usual practice was for workers to call in beginning in April to register for housing at Sakuma. Workers called in in 0 as usual.. Irma Santiago is a year-old migrant farm worker who lives in Stockton, California and who has worked for Sakuma since she was years old.. Ms. Santiago and her partner Guillermo Demetrio have a three-month-old baby.. The couple earn approximately $,000 a year working in agriculture.. Ms. Santiago and her partner pay rent in California, and they cannot afford to pay rent in Washington as well.. Ms. Santiago and Mr. Demetrio worked for Sakuma in 0 and lived in Sakuma s housing.. In 0, Ms. Santiago joined Familias Unidas and participated in strikes to earn better wages.. Both Ms. Santiago and Mr. Demetrio received letters from Sakuma telling them they were not eligible to work in 0.. On May st, Ms. Santiago called Sakuma and inquired about work, but Sakuma told her they were not eligible to work and they should seek other work.. At the time of trial on June, 0, Ms. Santiago had not received any communication from Sakuma rescinding its previous decision that she was ineligible for work because of her absences related to her strike activity in At time of trial, Ms. Santiago s family was staying temporarily with Ms. Santiago s MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

9 0 0 father in Mount Vernon, Washington while they sought work and housing with Sakuma, but they cannot stay there over the summer berry season.. Ms. Santiago and her partner cannot afford to pay for an apartment in Mount Vernon.. Ms. Santiago and her partner need to save money in the summer to be able to live during the winter months, when work is scarce.. If Sakuma does not allow Ms. Santiago and her partner to live in the housing they will have to look for other work or go back to California.. Ms. Santiago and her partner would work at Sakuma all season if they had housing.. Isidro Silva is married and has four children and the oldest child is years old.. Mr. Silva and his family live in California for half of the year and in Washington for the other half of the year.. Mr. Silva has worked for Sakuma since 00, and he and his family have lived in Sakuma s housing each year.. In 0, he joined Familias Unidas and participated in its efforts.. Mr. Silva arrived in Washington on June, 0, after being laid off for lack of work at his other berry job in California. 0. Mr. Silva comes up to Washington about the same time each year to begin work with Sakuma.. He plans to apply for work at Sakuma if they start offering housing.. If he is not offered housing, he would look for work and housing elsewhere for his family.. Reasonable workers in the shoes of Familias members, would be deterred from MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

10 0 0 engaging in protected concerted activity in the future, and would be deterred from even returning to their work at Sakuma, by the loss of their regular housing because it would be reasonable to conclude that Sakuma denied them housing because of their previous protected concerted activity. Sakuma s denial of housing to workers who engaged in protected concerted activity in the 0 season is a deterrent to future protected concerted activity by any of its workers.. Sakuma has previously engaged in interference in violation of LNLA by installing security guards in the labor camp housing areas and by having security guards follow Familias members and community supporters of Familias followed on the public highways.. Sakuma has previously engaged in interference and retaliation in violation of the LNLA by informing workers that they were ineligible for work at Sakuma because of their strike activity.. Sakuma did not inform employees of the rescission of its decision to make workers ineligible for work even after this Court ordered it to immediately do so.. Sakuma s actions set forth above are the context in which the Court finds that the denial of housing previously provided to the families and spouses of workers interferes with current and deters future protected concerted activities by the members of Familias and other individuals who are or will be working for Sakuma.. Sakuma s actions set forth above are the context in which the Court finds that the denial of housing previously provided to the families and spouses of workers was motivated by animus towards Familias members protected concerted activities and MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - 0 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

11 0 0 done in retaliation against the protected concerted activities of members of Familias. Based upon the above FINDINGS OF FACT, the Court makes the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:. Plaintiff Familias Unidas por la Justica has a clear legal right under Washington s little Norris-LaGuardia Act, RCW..00 to full freedom of association, selforganization, and designation of representatives of [their] choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of [their] employment, and [to] be free from interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protections. Those rights include the right to have engaged in peaceful strike activity, to conduct a boycott of Sakuma products, to engage with each other in peaceful marches and demonstrations, to communicate with each other and to the public on the internet and through other channels, and to act together to seek collective bargaining with Sakuma without coercion by Sakuma through polices that categorically disqualify them from employment and housing due to that lawful activity.. Plaintiff Familias Unidas por la Justicia have a well-grounded fear of continuing invasion of those rights because Defendant Sakuma Brothers, Inc., has: a. Informed Familias Unidas por la Justicia members that it will no longer allow workers spouses and families to live with them in its on-farm housing; b. Informed Familias Unidas por la Justicia members that it will segregate spouses in its on-farm housing; MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

12 0 0. Members of Plaintiff Familias have participated in concerted activity within the meaning of chapter. RCW, including strikes, marches, public campaigns, internet and other channels of communication among themselves and with their community, and the delivery of pledges by members to return to work.. Familias members protected concerted activity was a substantial factor motivating Sakuma s decision to change its housing policy.. The actions of Defendant Sakuma to deny housing to families and separate spouses restrains, coerces, and interferes with the protected concerted activities of members of Plaintiff Familias because lack of family housing represents a hardship for members of Familias, and in some cases makes further employment at Sakuma impossible.. The actions of Defendant Sakuma to deny housing to families and separate spouses were done in retaliation against the protected concerted activities of members of Plaintiff Familias.. Familias Unidas por la Justicia will suffer irreparable injury and damage if Defendant s actions described above are not restrained, because those activities were in retaliation for, and have the effect of interfering with the exercise of rights protected by chapter. RCW, and because without the ability to exercise those rights, the Plaintiffs are not able to exercise actual liberty of contract and to protect [their] freedom of labor, and thereby to obtain acceptable terms and conditions of employment, as provided in RCW Plaintiff Familias Unidas por la Justicia has a clear legal right under the Washington MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

13 0 0 Law Against Discrimination, RCW.0. and. to be free from discrimination and interference in housing based on marital and family status.. Housing provided in connection with employment in seasonal farm work is a dwelling within the meaning of chapter.0 RCW. 0. Plaintiff Familias Unidas por la Justicia have a well-grounded fear of continuing invasion of there rights under.0. RCW because Defendant Sakuma Brothers, Inc., has: a. Informed Familias Unidas por la Justicia members that it will no longer allow workers spouses and families to live with them in its on-farm housing; b. Informed Familias Unidas por la Justicia members that it will segregate spouses in its on-farm housing;. Sakuma s new 0 housing policy is a facial violation of the prohibition of family and marital status discrimination in RCW.0. and. as it directly informs former workers that if you intend to bring your family, you [must] make housing arrangements for your family members elsewhere. The letter further advises, [Sakuma] do[es] not have separate housing for married couples. As such, Sakuma s motivation for adopting the housing policy is immaterial.. Sakuma housing policy is not one that discriminates only on the basis of employment status. To the extent the letters or trial testimony state the new housing policy in terms of employment status, that is only a proxy for a facially discriminatory policy in which individuals who are employed are housed without their spouses or family members. Therefore employment status is simply a proxy MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

14 0 0 for family and marital status, further rendering the policy facially discriminatory. Children's Alliance v. City of Bellevue, 0 F. Supp., (W.D. Wash. ); Pac. Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 0 F.d, -0 & n. (th Cir. 0) ( Proxy discrimination is a form of facial discrimination).. Because Sakuma s housing policy, on its face, violates chapter.0 RCW, Sakuma has a defense only if: () the restrictions it places benefit the protected class, or () the restrictions respond to safety concerns raised by the protected class itself. The record contains no evidence to support either defense.. It is not a defense under chapter.0 RCW that Sakuma is not required by law to provide housing. Sakuma does provide housing, and chapter.0 applies to its provision of housing.. Familias Unidas por la Justicia will suffer irreparable injury and damage if Defendants actions described above are not restrained, because those activities have the effect of denying and interfering with enjoyment of housing in violation of chapter.0 RCW.. The balance of the relative interests of the parties favors Familias Unidas por La Justicia members, as they have a legal right to organize for better working conditions, and those efforts will be significantly impaired if Sakuma is able to enforce its new policies outlined above.. The balance of equities also favors the Plaintiff as the denial of housing to family members will cause economic hardship on migrant farm worker families who MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

15 0 0 cannot afford to rent housing in both Washington and their home state. Additionally, there is no available rental housing in the public sector to make up for the loss of housing for families at Sakuma.. There was no evidence from the Defendant that it would suffer a financial hardship if this Court ordered it to continue to house families as they have done in the past, nor was there any evidence that the current housing facilities at Sakuma were altered in any way to make them inappropriate to house families.. The interests of the public are served by providing housing to families with children. 0. The interests of the public are served by enforcing Washington s labor and antidiscrimination housing laws. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion For a Permanent Restraining Order is Granted. Defendant Sakuma is restrained and enjoined: a. To inform Familias Unidas por la Justicia members immediately that labor camp housing offered at Sakuma Bros. Farms is available to families with children, and children may reside in the same units as their parents. b. To inform Familias Unidas por la Justicia members immediately that labor camp housing offered at Sakuma Bros. Farms for is available for married couples, and husbands and wives may reside in the same unit. c. From retaliating against Plaintiffs due to the exercise of their rights under chapter. RCW and chapter.0 RCW. MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

16 This ORDER is binding upon the parties to this action, their officers, agents, servants, and employees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order shall remain in effect through. SIGNED IN OPEN COURT this day of June, 0. 0 SUSAN K. COOK SKAGIT CO. SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE 0 Presented by: Kathleen Phair Barnard, WSBA No. Laura Ewan, WSBA No. 0 BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP West Mercer Street, Suite 00 Seattle, WA (0) - Andrea L. Schmitt, WSBA No. COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Capitol Way S. #0 Olympia, WA 0 (0) -0 x0 Attorneys for Familias Unidas por la Justicia CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -

17 I hereby certify that on this th day of June, 0, I caused a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff s Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff s Motion for Permanent Injunction to be delivered by legal messenger to: Adam S. Belzberg Graham & Dunn PC Pier 0, 0 Alaskan Way, Ste. 00 Seattle, WA - Kathleen Phair Barnard 0 0 MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - (0) -