Martinez-Gonzalez v. Elkhorn Packing Co. LLC

Facts

P is a Spanish-speaking Mexican national who worked as an H-2A agricultural laborer for D. Ps sued D claiming D failed to pay Ps the required minimum wages and overtime pay, failed to provide meal and rest periods, breached a duty of care owed to Ps and breached their employment contract. The following facts have been stipulated to; P was presented with an Arbitration Agreement in 2016 and 2017. The Arbitration Agreement was presented in Spanish. P signed the Arbitration Agreements in 2016 and 2017. P was not provided with a copy of the Arbitration Agreement to keep. No employee refused to sign the Arbitration Agreement or otherwise opted out of it in 2016 or 2017. P was not expressly told that he could not work for D if did he not sign the Arbitration Agreement. P was not presented with the 2016 Arbitration Agreement while he was in Mexico in 2016. H-2A workers at D were under the impression that their visas did not permit them to work for any employer aside from D while in the United States under the H-2A visa. While on the bus to the work location, Ps were told that those who did not want to work hard could go back to Mexico. Other supervisors who oversaw P's work would often repeat this refrain, urging employees to work hard and follow all company rules. Ps credibly testified that there was no real explanation for the documents they were being asked to sign. Employees were directed to form lines to sign new-hire documents. While waiting to sign the new-hire forms, employees would stand on their feet. There were no chairs available for employees to sit on while waiting to sign the documents (although the supervisors who were collecting signatures had chairs). P said he stood in line for about 40 minutes before he reached the signing table. There were employees in front of and behind him. The orientation occurred after employees had been working in the fields. Mr. Martinez Gonzalez was tired and hungry when D supervisors told him to line up to sign the documents. P's witnesses credibly testified that no or only minimal explanation of the new-hire forms was presented and that new employees were merely directed to line up in order to sign the forms. Supervisors would flip through the pages of the new-hire packet and tell the employees where to sign. They were not given the documents to review prior to signing. The only explanation Plaintiff's witnesses obtained was that these forms related to Social Security. No mention was made or explanation given about the Arbitration Agreement. Selina Arreola was the person responsible for explaining the arbitration agreement to D's employees who were to explain it to Ps. At the trial, Ms. Arreola was asked several questions about the Arbitration Agreement, and she struggled to answer some of them. For example, she was unable to explain the term 'final and binding'; she had difficulty explaining the class action implications of signing the Arbitration Agreement, and she did not believe that the person who explained the term to Ps had ever received a copy of the American Arbitration Rules. The Court credits the testimony of P and Mr. Plascencia Macias that no explanation about the Arbitration Agreement was given. P did not revoke his signing of either Arbitration Agreement. P also lacked sufficient knowledge of the contents of the Arbitration Agreement to either (1) understand that he had signed such an Agreement, or (2) become informed of the window within which (and the method by which) he would have been able to withdraw, had he so desired. P was not informed about the Arbitration Agreement either in Mexico when he applied for the job or at the orientation in the United States; (2) in neither instance was he offered a reasonable opportunity to read the Arbitration Agreement; (3) the Arbitration Agreement was signed with a stack of papers after Plaintiff arrived in the United States within days after a 12- or so hour bus ride from Mexico and after a full day's work in the fields; (4) he had no familiarity with arbitration or what rights he was giving up when he signed both agreements; (5) he was financially dependent on D's employment as he made only a fraction of the pay doing agricultural work in Mexico; (6) his family depended on his income; (7) he reasonably believed he could not work for any other United States employer on his H-2A visa and that if he was refused employment with D he would have to return to Mexico without a job; (8) he reasonably believed that he had to sign the Arbitration Agreement along with the other papers as directed, at risk of losing his job; (9) he was never told signing the Arbitration Agreement was optional or voluntary. The district court refused to enforce the arbitration agreements, holding that P signed them under economic duress and undue influence. D appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.