Sunrise Labor Suit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JOHN DOES I-IV

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SUNRISE LABOR CORP., SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, a/k/a “Chavas,” FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, a/k/a “Poncho,” and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ, a/k/a “Claudia Jimenez”

Defendants.

Case No.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This action is brought by four migrant farmworkers who were held in forced labor

and debt peonage by farm labor contractor SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, his wife, CLAUDIA

HERNANDEZ, and brother, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ who were employees of SUNRISE

LABOR CORP. (“SUNRISE LABOR” and, collectively with Defendants Salvador Hernandez,

Claudia Hernandez, and Francisco Hernandez, “Defendants”).

2. Due to the highly sensitive nature and real danger of physical harm involved in

this case, plaintiffs John Does I, II, III, and IV (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are seeking leave to

proceed anonymously. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are identified here as John Does I through IV.

3. In connection with his treatment of Plaintiffs and other migrant farmworkers

employed by Defendant SUNRISE LABOR, Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ,

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ have faced federal criminal

charges.

Case 9:12-cv-80883-JMH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2012 of 28

2

4. In April 2012, Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ pled guilty to conspiring

to knowingly hire for employment at least ten unauthorized aliens during a twelve month period,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 371. On April 6, 2012, Defendant

SALVADOR HERNANDEZ was granted a conditional release until his Sentencing, which is

currently scheduled for September 4, 2012.

5. In February 2012, the government filed an Indictment in the U.S. District Court

for the Northern District of New York charging Defendant FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ with

conspiracy to encourage and induce aliens to reside in the United States, knowing and in reckless

disregard of the fact that such residence was and would be in violation of law, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). Defendant FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ was subsequently arrested

and arraigned on June 4, 2012, during which he entered a plea of Not Guilty. Pursuant to the

court’s order, Defendant FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ continues to be detained pending trial.

6. In February 2012, the government filed an Indictment in the U.S. District Court

for the Northern District of New York charging Defendant CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ with three

felony charges, namely, conspiracy to bring in and harbor certain aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I); false writing, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3); and using a

fraudulent social security number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). Defendant

CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ was arraigned on those charges on May 25, 2012 and was granted a

conditional release on June 14, 2012.

7. Acting within the scope of their employment, Defendants SALVADOR

HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ recruited

undocumented field workers in Mexico and the United States to work on farms (“growers”) and

relied on a pattern of threats, violence, harassment, and indebtedness to force Plaintiffs and other


3

migrant farmworkers to perform grueling, back-breaking manual labor as Defendants transported

the workers between several states including Florida, Illinois, Georgia, Mississippi, and New

York.

8. Defendants imposed extraordinary and unlawful debts on Plaintiffs and other

migrant farmworkers and, through threats and intimidation, caused Plaintiffs and other migrant

farmworkers to believe that leaving Defendants’ employ would result in being hunted and

seriously injured or even killed.

9. No Plaintiff received the compensation they were entitled to under state and

federal laws. At times, Plaintiffs and other migrant farmworkers were not paid at all for their

work. They were forced to work even when sick or injured and Defendants SALVADOR

HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ denied them

medical treatment. The housing conditions provided by Defendants were horrendous.

10. Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and

CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ instigated and created a hostile work environment, causing two

Plaintiffs to be physically and mentally assaulted by other migrant farmworkers and causing

them to suffer depression and other severe emotional and mental distress.

11. After Plaintiffs left Defendant SUNRISE LABOR’S employ, Defendants

SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ

continued a scheme of threats and intimidation to prevent Plaintiffs from taking action to assert

their rights, and Plaintiffs continue to fear for their lives and the lives of their families.

12. Defendants held Plaintiffs in forced labor and trafficked Plaintiffs with respect to

peonage in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18

U.S.C. § 1589 et. seq.


4

13. Defendants routinely failed to pay Plaintiffs the federal minimum wage, as

required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq., and unlawfully

deducted from their pay various charges, including the cost of smuggling Plaintiffs into the

United States.

14. Defendants engaged in multiple violations of the Migrant and Seasonal

Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. These include: (1)

failing to disclose in writing the terms and conditions of employment at the time of recruitment;

(2) providing false and misleading information to Plaintiffs at the time of recruitment; (3) failing

to pay the wages owed to Plaintiffs when due; (4) failing to abide by the terms of a working

arrangement; (5) failing to post requirements imposed upon employers and housing providers;

(6) failing to provide each of the Plaintiffs with an itemized pay statement; (7) housing Plaintiffs

in housing that did not comply with federal and state law; (8) failing to post a certificate of

occupancy at the housing occupied by Plaintiffs; and (9) transporting Plaintiffs in unsafe

vehicles.

15. Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ’S, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ’S, and

CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ’S harassment of John Does I and II based on their sexual orientation

created a hostile work environment, instigating physical and mental assaults of John Does I and

II by fellow migrant farmworkers employed by Defendant SUNRISE LABOR, in violation of the

New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(1)(a).

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

question jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. § 1337 (Acts of Congress regulating commerce), 18 U.S.C. §

1595(a) (TVPRA), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (FLSA), and 29 U.S.C § 1854(a) (AWPA). Jurisdiction

over the Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory relief is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.


5

17. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims raised by virtue of

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

18. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the

Defendants are residents of Palm Beach County, Florida and/or a substantial part of the events

complained of took place in Palm Beach County, Florida.

19. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants, who are residents of

Florida. Additionally and/or alternatively, Plaintiffs’ claims arise from or relate to Defendants’

activities within Florida and/or the commission of crimes or torts in whole or in part in Florida.

III. THE PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS

20. Plaintiffs were employees of Defendant SUNRISE LABOR under the direct

supervision of Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ,

CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ, and/or crew leaders whose work they organized, led, supervised,

and/or directed.

21. At the time of their employment with Defendant SUNRISE LABOR, Plaintiffs

were not citizens of the United States and were undocumented.

22. John Does I and II currently reside in the United States pursuant to T-Visas, a visa

given by the United States Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

Services only after the applicant demonstrates that he or she is a victim of a severe form of

trafficking in persons.

23. John Doe III and IV also currently reside in the United States.

24. John Doe III recently applied for a T-Visa and is awaiting its issuance.

25. John Doe IV is in the process of applying for a T-Visa.


6

26. During their employment with Defendant SUNRISE LABOR, Plaintiffs were

migrant agricultural workers within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802(8)(A).

Plaintiffs were employed in agricultural employment of a seasonal or other temporary nature and

were required to be absent overnight from their permanent places of residence.

27. During their employment with Defendant SUNRISE LABOR, Plaintiffs were

engaged in agricultural employment within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802(3).

28. Plaintiffs were employees of Defendant SUNRISE LABOR within the meaning of

the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). Plaintiffs were individuals employed by an employer, as

employer is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

29. At the time of their employment with SUNRISE LABOR, Plaintiffs were engaged

in commerce or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the FLSA, 29

U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(i).

DEFENDANTS

30. Upon information and belief, Defendant SUNRISE LABOR is a Florida

corporation incorporated in 2008 with a principal place of business at 2323 Del Prado Blvd. S,

Suite B1, Cape Coral, Florida, 33990.

31. At all relevant times, Defendant SUNRISE LABOR was an agricultural employer

within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802(2). It recruits, solicits, hires, employs,

furnishes, or transports migrant or seasonal agricultural workers.

32. Defendant SUNRISE LABOR was authorized to do business in the state of New

York.

33. At all relevant times, Defendant SUNRISE LABOR employed more than four

persons.


7

34. Upon information and belief, Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ and

CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ are a married couple residing at 1132 NE 28th Street, Lot 32, Belle

Glade, Florida 33430.

35. Upon information and belief, Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ is currently

awaiting sentencing in the Northern District of New York.

36. Upon information and belief, Defendant CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ is currently

awaiting trial in the Northern District of New York.

37. Upon information and belief, Defendant FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ resides at

900 Northeast 25th Street, Belle Glade, Florida 33430.

38. Upon information and belief, Defendant FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ is

currently detained and awaiting trial in the Northern District of New York.

39. At all relevant times, Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO

HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ were farm labor contractors within the meaning

of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802(7). For a fee, Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ,

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ recruited, solicited, hired,

transported, and housed Plaintiffs and other migrant farmworkers.

40. As of March 8, 2006, Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ was licensed as a

State Individual Contractor for the state of Florida, Registration Number 1036, expiring on

August 31, 2012, and as a Farm Labor Contractor with the United States Department of Labor,

Registration Number C-04-676139-H-12-R, expiring on August 31, 2012.

41. As of March 15, 2006, Defendant FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ was licensed as a

State Individual Contractor for the state of Florida, Registration Number 1193, expiring on


8

September 30, 2012, and as a Farm Labor Contractor with the United States Department of

Labor, Registration Number C-04-800002-1-13-R, expiring on September 4, 2013.

42. At all relevant times, Defendant CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ performed

bookkeeping, secretarial, and other managerial tasks requisite to recruit, hire, employ, transport,

and house Plaintiffs and other migrant farmworkers.

43. Upon information and belief, Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ,

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ had authority to hire, fire,

discipline, or transfer the migrant farmworkers employed by Defendant SUNRISE LABOR.

44. At all relevant times, Defendants were Plaintiffs’ “employer” within the meaning

of FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). Defendants acted directly or indirectly in the interest of an

employer in relation to Plaintiffs.

45. Upon information and belief, Defendants collectively operated an enterprise

engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Business of Sunrise Labor

46. Defendant SUNRISE LABOR is an agricultural labor company that contracts

with various growers located in several states across the United States, including Florida, Illinois,

Georgia, Mississippi, and New York, to harvest, pack, and store the growers’ agricultural crops.

47. To accomplish this, Defendant SUNRISE LABOR employs crew leaders who

each recruit, transport, supply, hire, and supervise crews of 35 to 40 Hispanic migrant

farmworkers. Some crew leaders are additionally responsible for supervising other crew leaders.

48. The crew leaders’ work requires that they, with the assistance of a bookkeeper,

inter alia, arrange documentation, transportation and housing for the migrant farmworkers;


9

determine the work schedule of the migrant farmworkers; supervise the migrant farmworkers in

their work; and calculate wages and pay the migrant farmworkers.

49. Soon after its incorporation in 2008, Defendant SUNRISE LABOR hired

Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, who had worked for Defendant SUNRISE LABOR’S

predecessor companies, to work as a crew leader and Defendant CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ to

perform bookkeeping, secretarial, and other managerial tasks for Defendant SALVADOR

HERNANDEZ’S crew and the crew of other crew leaders directed by him.

50. Upon information and belief, in addition to leading a crew, Defendant

SALVADOR HERNANDEZ also organized, led, supervised, and/or directed other crew leaders,

including a crew leader known as “Mejia,” and other employees of Defendant SUNRISE

LABOR that performed bookkeeping, secretarial, and other managerial tasks (“bookkeepers”),

including employees known as “Juliana Mejia” and “Sylvia.”

51. Defendant SUNRISE LABOR also hired Defendant FRANCISCO

HERNANDEZ to work as a crew leader.

52. Upon information and belief, in addition to leading a crew, Defendant

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ also organized, led, supervised, and/or directed other crew leaders,

including a crew leader known as “Chema.”

53. Defendants FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ and SALVADOR HERNANDEZ (who

traveled with Defendant CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ) traveled with their crews, which often

included Plaintiffs, between growers located in or near Florida, Illinois, Georgia, Mississippi,

and New York, often returning to the same growers at the same time each year.


10

54. Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ transported his crew between growers

and to and from the fields on repainted school buses that had an insufficient number of seats,

forcing migrant farmworkers to perilously sit or lay in the bus aisles.

55. Defendants SUNRISE LABOR, SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, and/or

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ often required additional employees to travel with the crews, to

perform such functions including, inter alia, preparing meals for the migrant farmworkers for a

purported fee, operating a commissary at the migrant farmworker camp, and driving the school

buses that transported the migrant farmworkers.

The Recruitment of Plaintiffs

56. Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ’S and FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ’S

responsibilities at Defendant SUNRISE LABOR included the recruitment of migrant

farmworkers.

57. Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ and FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ

recruited Plaintiffs and other migrant farmworkers personally and through agents in Mexico and

in Belle Glade, Florida between 2001 and 2008. They knew that nearly all of the migrant

farmworkers workers recruited were undocumented, Hispanic, typically did not speak English,

and moved from job to job, often without family members.

The Recruitment of John Does I and II

58. Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ paid for the smuggling of John Doe I and

transport of John Doe II to Belle Glade, Florida, for which John Does I and II and/or their

families became purportedly “indebted” to Defendants.

59. John Does I and II were told they had to work for Defendants as repayment of that

purported “indebtedness.”


11

60. John Doe I was a minor at the time that Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ

paid for the smuggling of John Doe I into the United States and required John Doe I to work as

repayment of his purported “indebtedness.” Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ and

CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ had knowledge of John Doe I’s status as a minor.

The Recruitment of John Doe III

61. Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ personally recruited John Doe III in

Mexico. He promised John Doe III an annual salary of over $30,000 and the provision of

comfortable housing. He also spoke of his urgent need for migrant farmworkers and/or truck

drivers in the United States and encouraged John Doe III to travel to Belle Glade, Florida

immediately.

62. Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ instructed that John Doe III have a

specific coyote – a person that smuggles individuals across the United States-Mexican border –

smuggle him into the United States. Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ promised that he

would pay the coyote’s fee upon John Doe III’s arrival in Belle Glade, Florida, for which John

Doe III would become purportedly “indebted” to Defendants.

63. John Doe III followed the instructions of Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ

based on the promises made to him.

64. Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ paid an associate of the coyote in cash

for the smuggling of John Doe III upon his arrival in Belle Glade, Florida.

65. John Doe III became purportedly “indebted” to Defendants for the fee paid to the

coyote’s associate.

66. Moreover, contrary to the promises made by Defendant SALVADOR

HERNANDEZ, after his arrival in Belle Glade, Florida, John Doe III did not receive an annual

salary of $30,000 or comfortable housing, nor did work exist immediately upon his arrival.


12

The Recruitment of John Doe IV

67. John Doe IV was recruited by an agent of Defendant SALVADOR

HERNANDEZ and/or FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ in Mexico. John Doe IV attended a

meeting held in a backyard promoted and held by the agent.

68. During the meeting, the agent promised guaranteed work in corn and sugarcane

fields in Florida. The agent stated that: wages would be discussed upon the recruits’ arrival in

the United States, each recruit would be charged a specified amount to be smuggled across the

United States border, and that the recruits need only appear at a certain house at a specified time.

69. John Doe IV was told that he could borrow the money needed to pay for his entry

into the United States, which purported “indebtedness” he would repay while working in Florida.

70. John Doe IV, along with other recruits, appeared at the appointed house at the

appointed hour and was smuggled into the United States and then transported to Belle Glade,

Florida.

71. Upon John Doe IV’s arrival in Belle Glade, Defendant SALVADOR

HERNANDEZ paid the coyote’s fee for his border crossing, as well as the fee of other recruits.

72. John Doe IV became purportedly “indebted” to Defendants for the fee paid to the

coyote.

73. During their recruitment, or at any other time, Plaintiffs were not provided with

any written disclosure of the terms or conditions of employment.

Repayment of Plaintiffs’ Purported “Indebtedness”

74. Upon Plaintiffs’ arrival in Belle Glade, Florida, Plaintiffs were hired by

Defendant SUNRISE LABOR and/or its predecessor companies.


13

75. Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ and FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, as

well as other crew leaders they directed, supervised Plaintiffs from their hiring dates, between

2001 and 2008, until October 2009.

76. At no time prior to their arrival in Belle Glade, Florida, were Plaintiffs told that

they could not work for an employer other than Defendant SUNRISE LABOR while repaying

their purported “indebtedness.”

77. However, soon after Plaintiffs’ arrival in Belle Glade, Florida, Defendants

SALVADOR HERNANDEZ and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ explicitly and implicitly threatened

Plaintiffs that they could not seek employment with any employer other than with Defendants so

long as they purportedly remained “indebted” to Defendants.

78. Upon information and belief, Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ and

CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ at times controlled the balance of Plaintiffs’ and other migrant

farmworkers’ purported “indebtedness,” as well as Plaintiffs’ ability to repay that purported

“indebtedness,” by controlling the work schedule of Plaintiffs’ and other migrant farmworkers.

79. For example, despite promising John Doe III that migrant farmworkers were

urgently needed in Belle Glade, Florida, Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ and/or

CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ did not schedule John Doe III to work for approximately three weeks

after his arrival in Florida, during which time, Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ and/or

CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ charged John Doe III for food, “rent,” and remittances to his family,

for which he purportedly incurred additional “indebtedness.”

80. Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ

threatened that migrant farmworkers, including John Doe II, who left the employ of Defendant

SUNRISE LABOR while he or she purportedly remained “indebted” would be violently beaten.


14

81. Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ often bragged to Plaintiffs and other

migrant farmworkers of his ability to hire agents to violently beat migrant farmworkers.

82. Defendant FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ violently beat a migrant farmworker, a

minor.

83. Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ additionally threatened to call

“immigration,” or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), concerning migrant

farmworkers.

84. Plaintiffs believed these threats and feared violence, based at least in part on

violence suffered by acquaintances; the presence of many injured migrant farmworkers at the

housing camps provided by Defendants in Belle Glade, Florida; and from accounts told by other

migrant farmworkers of previous violent beatings performed pursuant the orders of Defendant

SALVADOR HERNANDEZ.

85. Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ and/or crew

leaders and bookkeepers directed by Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ unlawfully

retained wages that Plaintiffs were owed.


unlawfully kept portions of John Does I, III and IVs’ wages in purported “repayment” for the

smuggling fees paid to coyotes.

87. Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ kept up

to half of Plaintiffs’ and other migrant farmworkers’ wages each pay period as “repayment” of

Plaintiffs’ purported “indebtedness” to Defendants.


15

88. Additionally, Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ and CLAUDIA

HERNANDEZ kept all of John Doe I’s wages as “repayment” of purported “indebtedness” for

the first several months of his employment.

89. Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ did not

disclose the balance of Plaintiffs’ and other migrant farmworkers’ purported “indebtedness” to

Defendants, nor did they disclose the wages kept as repayment of that purported “indebtedness.”

90. In an attempt to determine the amount of his purported “indebtedness” and control

alleged repayment of that purported “indebtedness,” John Doe I requested that he receive his full

wages, from which John Doe I would make payments to Defendants. Defendant SALVADOR

HERNANDEZ denied this request.

91. Only after repeated requests by John Doe II did Defendant CLAUDIA

HERNANDEZ note the balance of John Doe II’s purported “indebtedness” on the envelope

containing John Doe II’s paystub.

92. Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ often distributed Plaintiffs’ and other

migrant farmworkers’ wages while holding a handgun in his lap.

93. At times, while distributing wages, Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ

converted migrant farmworkers’ wages by keeping the wages and distributing only the paystub,

contending that the migrant farmworker’s work was allegedly unsatisfactory to him.

94. At times, Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ and/or crew leaders directed by

him forced John Does I and III to perform the work of other migrant farmworkers without pay or

to work in payment of another’s purported “indebtedness,” for which Plaintiffs received no

wages.


16

95. Moreover, Defendants and/or bookkeepers directed by Defendant SALVADOR

HERNANDEZ distributed paystubs that falsified the hours that Plaintiffs and other migrant

farmworkers had worked during a pay period, such that it appeared that Plaintiffs and the other

migrant farmworkers, who were actually paid by piece, were paid in accordance with hourly

minimum wage requirements.

Arrangement of False Identification

96. Upon Plaintiffs’ arrival in Belle Glade, Florida, Defendants SALVADOR

HERNANDEZ, CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ and/or bookkeepers supervised by them arranged for

and provided to Plaintiffs false identification, including but not limited to false social security

numbers and green cards.


increased Plaintiffs’ purported “indebtedness” by amounts of at least $150 for the false

identification.

98. The false identification that Defendants CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ and/or

SALVADOR HERNANDEZ arranged for John Doe I stated a false date of birth, such that John

Doe I did not appear to be a minor.

Working Conditions

99. At work, Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO

HERNANDEZ, and other crew leaders they directed did not permit Plaintiffs and other migrant

farmworkers to take breaks, despite grueling labor and very high temperatures. Even 15 or 20

minute lunch breaks were permitted only occasionally.

100. At times, Plaintiffs and other migrant farmworkers did not even have access to

clean water, despite the very high temperatures.


17

101. At times, John Doe III and other migrant farmworkers often suffered fatigue or

fell ill due to illnesses caused by the heat.

102. When a migrant farmworker suffered fatigue or fell ill and stopped working,

Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ or his agent forcibly moved the migrant farmworker,

threatened to violently beat the worker if he or she did not begin working, or forced the migrant

farmworker to walk from the fields in which they worked to the migrant farmworker housing,

regardless of the distance.

103. On at least one occasion, Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ threatened to

hire someone to beat up or kill a migrant farmworker that had fallen ill.

104. To ensure that workers continued to work at a brutal pace, Defendant

SALVADOR HERNANDEZ carried and brandished a handgun as he paced the fields where

Plaintiffs and other migrant farmworkers worked. At times, to intimidate Plaintiffs and other

migrant farmworkers, he shot birds and other objects located in the fields with the handgun.

105. As a result of Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ’S threats to other migrant

farmworkers and brandishing of his handgun, Plaintiffs felt they had no choice but to work under

harsh conditions, and continued to do so despite illness, fatigue, injury, or ill effects from the

heat.

106. Because Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ and other crew leaders he

directed prohibited work breaks, John Doe III and other migrant farmworkers were repeatedly

sprayed with pesticides, as pesticides were applied to the crops while they worked in Indianola,

Mississippi.


CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ regularly denied medical treatment to Plaintiffs and other migrant


18

farmworkers when they fell ill while working, suffered fatigue while working, or were injured by

another person or while working.

108. Instead of providing medical treatment, Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ

and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ threatened that Plaintiffs or any other migrant farmworker who

sought medical attention would be deported by ICE. At times, Defendants SALVADOR

HERNANDEZ and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ threatened to call ICE.

109. Due to Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ’S and CLAUDIA

HERNANDEZ’S threats, migrant farmworkers often returned to work while seriously injured.

Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ had knowledge of this because of the visibility of the

injuries, which he saw as the migrant farmworkers worked.

110. As a result of being frequently sprayed with pesticide in Indianola, Mississippi,

continuing to work despite illness and fatigue, and being denied medical treatment, John Doe III

continues to suffer serious and debilitating physical symptoms and emotional distress.

Housing Conditions

111. In Belle Glade, Florida, Defendants housed John Does II, III, and IV in isolated,

overcrowded, and unsanitary conditions. Housing consisted of two-bedroom trailers that housed

between ten and twelve migrant farmworkers. The trailers suffered rodent and insect

infestations, holes in the roofs and floors, and non-functioning bathrooms.

112. Defendants charged John Does II, III, and IV varying amounts of at least $100 per

month as purported “rent” for this housing which Defendants unlawfully withheld from the

wages paid to John Does II, III, and IV.

113. While Defendants provided isolated, overcrowded and unsanitary housing to

Plaintiffs and other migrant farmworkers at no charge in Illinois, Georgia, Mississippi, and New


19

York, Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ threatened to charge migrant farmworkers for this

housing if they failed to work due to illness or injury.

114. In Bainbridge, Georgia, John Doe II was housed in a four-bedroom house with

approximately 25 other workers; he was forced to sleep on the floor. The bathroom was

unsanitary and the house did not have a functioning refrigerator.

115. The housing provided to Plaintiffs and other migrant farmworkers in King Ferry,

New York housing did not have hot water and had unsanitary bathrooms.

Discrimination against John Does I and II

116. Beginning Summer 2006 and continuing through Fall 2009, Defendants


began making threats of violence and repeated, obscene, offensive, and discriminatory jokes

concerning the sexual orientation of John Does I and II and others in the presence of other

migrant farmworkers.

117. These repeated offensive and discriminatory jokes created a hostile work

environment in which migrant farmworkers who worked with John Does I and II made obscene,

offensive, and discriminatory jokes concerning the sexual orientation of John Does I and II.

118. Far from discouraging such conduct, Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ,

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ encouraged the migrant

farmworkers to make such obscene, offensive, and discriminatory jokes.

119. Due to the instigation of Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO

HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ, migrant farmworkers began sexually assaulting

and physically and mentally abusing John Does I and II.


20

120. The obscene, offensive, and discriminatory jokes, sexual assaults, and physical

and mental abuse occurred while John Does I and II worked under the supervision of Defendants

SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ.

121. Due to the instigation of Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO

HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ, in King Ferry, New York, migrant farmworkers

used a rifle belonging to Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ to mentally abuse John Doe II.

122. John Does I and II told Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO

HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ of the sexual assaults and physical and mental

abuse. Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA

HERNANDEZ did not assist John Does I and II.

123. Defendant SUNRISE LABOR provided no other avenue for John Does I and II to

register complaints of the sexual assaults and physical and mental abuse.

124. When told of the sexual assaults and physical and mental abuse, Defendants


treated the events as a joke; made obscene, offensive, and discriminatory jokes concerning the

events; denied John Does I and II medical treatment; and threatened to call ICE.

125. Additionally, after John Doe II sought required medical treatment after a physical

assault, Defendant SALVADOR HERNANDEZ placed John Doe II in additional physical

danger by informing the migrant farmworkers that John Doe II was to blame if ICE began

deporting them.

Threats to Plaintiffs

126. After John Does I, II, and III left the employ of Defendant SUNRISE LABOR,

Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA


21

HERNANDEZ threatened the lives of John Does I, II, and III such that John Does I, II, and III

fear for their lives and the lives of their families.

127. Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and/or

CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ additionally threatened at least one other former employee who

assisted the United States federal law enforcement in criminal cases against Defendants

SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ.

128. During some of the threats they received, John Does I and II believed they would

be imminently killed.

129. The threats severely traumatized and afflicted John Does I and II with serious

physical distress and mental anguish.

130. Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ,

CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ, and their agents have continued a scheme of threats and scare tactics

against John Does I, II, and III and their families.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (COUNT I)

TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT, FORCED LABOR, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1595

131. Paragraphs 1 through 130 are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully

set forth herein.

132. Plaintiffs bring this civil claim pursuant to the civil remedies provision of the

TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. § 1595.

133. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589.


22

134. Defendants knowingly used serious harm or threats of serious harm to Plaintiffs

and other migrant farmworkers to obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1589(a)(2).

135. Defendants knowingly abused or threatened to abuse the law or legal process to

obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(3).

136. Defendants knowingly used a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause Plaintiffs

to believe that, if Plaintiffs did not perform labor or services, that Plaintiffs or another person

would suffer serious harm or physical restraint in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(4).

137. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries.

138. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1595, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and

punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate for Defendants’

wrongful conduct.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (COUNT II)

TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT, TRAFFICKING WITH RESPECT TO PEONAGE, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581, 1590, 1595


set forth herein.

140. Plaintiffs bring this civil claim pursuant to the civil remedies provision of the

TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. § 1595.

141. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590, Defendants knowingly recruited, harbored,

transported, provided, or obtained Plaintiffs for labor or services through a violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1581 by holding or returning Plaintiffs to a condition of peonage.

142. Defendants held Plaintiffs in a condition of involuntary servitude.


23

143. Defendants did so by using force, physical violence, intimidation, legal coercion,

threats of legal coercion or physical force, or other compulsion.

144. The holding was for a term continuing until Plaintiffs repaid their purported

“indebtedness” to Defendants.

145. Defendants acted knowingly and willfully with specific intent.

146. Defendants kept Plaintiffs to satisfy a real or imagined debt.

147. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1595, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and

punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate for Defendants’

wrongful conduct.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (COUNT III)

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 211

ASSERTED BY JOHN DOES I, II, AND III


set forth herein.

149. By failing to pay minimum wages to John Does I, II, and III, Defendants violated

the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206 et. seq. and its implementing regulations.

150. By failing to make, keep, and preserve records of hours worked by John Does I,

II, and III, Defendants violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 211(c).

151. Defendants violated 29 C.F.R. § 531.31 by making deductions from the wages of

John Does I, II, and III which violated federal, state, and/or local law.

152. Defendants’ violations of the FLSA were willful within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.

§ 255(a), in that Defendants knew or showed reckless disregard for whether Defendants’ conduct

was prohibited under the FLSA.


24

153. Defendants’ failure to comply with the FLSA minimum wage protections caused

Plaintiffs to suffer loss of wages and interest thereon.

154. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), John Does I, II, and III are entitled to unpaid

wages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (COUNT IV)

MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION ACT, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1821-23, 1841


set forth herein.

156. By failing to provide Plaintiffs at the time of recruitment with a written disclosure

of the terms and conditions of employment, Defendants violated the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §

1821(a).

157. By knowingly giving false and misleading information to Plaintiffs at the time of

recruitment, Defendants violated the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(f).

158. By failing to pay the wages owed to Plaintiffs when due, Defendants violated the

AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1822(a).

159. By failing to abide by the terms of a working arrangement, Defendants violated

the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c).

160. By failing to post requirements imposed upon employers and housing providers,

Defendants violated the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(b) and (c).

161. By failing to provide each of the Plaintiffs with an itemized pay statement,

Defendants violated the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2).

162. By housing Plaintiffs in housing that did not comply with state and federal law,

Defendants violated the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1823(a).


25

163. Upon information and belief, by failing to post a certificate of occupancy at the

housing occupied by Plaintiffs, Defendants violated the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1823(b).

164. Upon information and belief, by transporting Plaintiffs in unsafe vehicles, the

Defendants violated the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1841(b)(1)(A), and its implementing regulations, 29

C.F.R. §§ 500.104 and 500.105.

165. The violations of the AWPA as set forth in paragraphs 155 through 163 were the

natural consequence of the conscious and deliberate actions of Defendants and were intentional

within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1).

166. Defendants’ failure to comply with the AWPA caused Plaintiffs to suffer

damages.

167. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1854(c), for each violation of the AWPA, Plaintiffs are

entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, actual damages or up to $500 per

violation in statutory damages, for each year worked.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (COUNT V)

NEW YORK HUMAN RIGHTS LAW NEW YORK EXECUTIVE LAW § 296(1)(a)

ASSERTED BY JOHN DOES I AND II


set forth herein.

169. Defendants are employers under New York Human Rights Law.

170. The workplace of John Does I and II, in New York and elsewhere, was permeated

with discriminatory intimidation based on the sexual orientation of John Does I and II that was

sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of their work environment.


26

171. The harassment was attributable to both the co-workers of John Does I and II and

to Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA

HERNANDEZ.


CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ wielded authority delegated to them by Defendant SUNRISE

LABOR to further the creation of a discriminatorily abusive work environment.


CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ additionally supervised the co-workers who harassed John Does I

and II.


CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ had actual knowledge of the harassment of John Does I and II.

175. Because of Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ’S, FRANCISCO

HERNANDEZ’S, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ’S supervisory role over the co-workers who

harassed John Does I and II, the knowledge of Defendants SALVADOR HERNANDEZ,

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, and CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ regarding the harassment is

imputed to Defendant SUNRISE LABOR.

176. Defendant SUNRISE LABOR provided no reasonable avenue for complaint and

knew of the harassment but did nothing about it.

177. Defendants discriminated against John Does I and II because of their sexual

orientation, in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

178. As a result of this discrimination, John Does I and II suffered physical and mental

injuries.


27

179. Pursuant to New York Executive Law § 297(9), Plaintiffs are entitled to

compensatory damages as well as attorneys’ fees for Defendants’ wrongful conduct.

VI. JURY DEMAND

180. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this court enter an order: Declaring that

the Defendants have knowingly and intentionally violated the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581 and

1589, and their prohibition on forced labor and debt peonage; Granting judgment in favor of

Plaintiffs and against Defendants on claims brought under the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581 and

1589 and awarding Plaintiffs actual damages, punitive and exemplary damages, as well as

attorneys’ fees, where permissible; Declaring that Defendants have knowingly and intentionally

violated the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. § 1590, and its prohibition on trafficking into forced labor;

Granting judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on claims brought under the

TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. § 1590, and awarding Plaintiffs actual damages, punitive and exemplary

damages, as well as attorneys’ fees, where permissible; Granting judgment in favor of Plaintiffs

and against Defendants on their claims of violations of the FLSA and AWPA and awarding

Plaintiffs actual damages, punitive and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys’ fees, where

permissible; Granting judgment in favor of John Does I and II and against Defendants on their

claim of violation of the New York Human Rights Law and awarding John Does I and II actual

damages, punitive and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys’ fees, where permissible;


28

a. Awarding Plaintiffs pre- and post-judgment interest;

b. Awarding Plaintiffs the costs of this action;

c. Awarding other punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be

proven at trial; and

d. Granting such further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

Dated: August 20, 2012 Miami, Florida

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

MAYER BROWN LLP Steven Wolowitz Allison M. Stowell Meghan Morrison Silver Thomas G. Strong 1675 Broadway New York, New York 10019 Tel: (212) 506-2500 Fax: (212) 506-1910 (Counsel) and WORKER JUSTICE CENTER OF NEW YORK David O. Irving 1187 Culver Road Rochester, New York 14609-5448 Tel: (585) 325-3050 Fax: (585) 325-7614 (Counsel)

By: s/Jane W. Moscowitz MOSCOWITZ & MOSCOWITZ, P.A. Jane W. Moscowitz 1111 Brickell Avenue Suite 2050 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 379-8300 Fax: (305) 379-4404 Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs


Sunrise Labor Suit

Documents

Transcript of Sunrise Labor Suit