Fowler Gerawan

sorta belated diSAMBIG/ SEE CEDAR PTS

---

new

:{cthouse news service

in cahoots}:

ELIZABETH WARMERDAM / January 26, 2016

FRESNO, Calif. (CN) - Two California farm businesses were intentionally excluded from benefits of a state law to punish them for their labor disputes with the United Farm Workers, the growers claim in Federal Court.

Gerawan Farming and Fowler Packing Co. sued the state on Friday, claiming that exemptions in Assembly Bill 1513violate their rights to equal protection. The United Farm Workers is not a party to the case.

David Schwarz, attorney for Gerawan and Fowler, told Courthouse News the intent of the legislation "was to carve out and punish two growers targeted by the UFW."

"The effect is to deprive their employees of the benefits promised to other farmworkers in this state. All of this was done at the behest of a politically influential union as the price of their support of this bill," Schwarz said.

AB 1513 was signed into law on Oct. 10, 2015, and took effect on Jan. 1. The bill essentially rewrote the rules governing payment of piece-rate compensation in California.

It requires employees to be paid for rest and recovery periods and other nonproductive time at or above specified minimum hourly rates, separately from any piece-rate compensation.

The law, written by Assemblyman Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara, is intended to ensure that employees who get paid by the mile driven, by the piece produced, or by the fruit piece picked have paid meal and rest periods.

The law includes a safe harbor provision for employers who could face liability for not properly paying their piece-rate workers for recovery and rest periods in the past. Employers have a grace period in which to pay back wages to workers for nonproductive time. In return, they will be protected from lawsuits for past failure to pay, potentially sparing them from far higher penalties.

Although most growers can take advantage of the safe harbor provision, Gerawan and Fowler say they were intentionally carved out of the legislation.

"The ostensible purpose of AB 1513 was to insure that workers were 'made whole' promptly and to cause the resolution of pending wage and hour class actions by minimizing the risk of crippling penalty judgments caused by these litigations. As enacted, AB 1513 deliberately excluded Fowler and Gerawan," the complaint states.

The two Fresno County growers say they are defending themselves in class actions based on nonproductive time wage and hour claims, but are not allowed to apply for the law's so-called "Penalty Relief Plan," like other growers in the state.

"In essence, the Legislature created an amnesty program for an entire class of California employers facing wage and hour class action suits, except for Fowler and Gerawan," the complaint states.

The targeting was not accidental, the growers say, as several carve-out dates in the legislation single out Gerawan and Fowler.

For example, the safe harbor does not apply to any nonproductive wage and hour claim that was asserted in court before March 1, 2014 - which excludes Gerawan, because it was sued by the UFW about three weeks before that cutoff date.

The legislation "was reverse-engineered via a last minute legislative 'gut and amend' designed to punish Fowler and Gerawan. The targeting was in response to demands by the United Farm Workers of America that these growers be excluded from AB 1513's 'safe harbor' provisions as the price for the UFW's non-opposition to this legislation," according to the complaint.

The UFW has been in a longstanding feud with Gerawan over unionization and has had a series of labor disputes with Fowler Packing. An attorney for the union is among the attorneys listed on class action lawsuitsfiled against both growers.

"While the UFW now publicly claims credit for the passage of AB 1513, it does not mention its role in carving out Fowler and Gerawan - and their employees - from the legislation, or the reasons behind its demand that these two growers be singled out for special punishment," the growers say.

They claim that Assemblyman Williams acknowledged that excluding them from the bill's protection "was part of a 'pact' to keep the UFW from opposing the measure."

Purposefully targeting them for punishment also puts their employees at a disadvantage by stripping them of the benefits of the law, the growers say.

"Unlike workers who might obtain prompt payment of back wages by employers who opt for the protections afforded under AB 1513's amnesty program, the workers represented by UFW's general counsel in these class actions obtain no protection as a result of this 'pact' between the UFW and the Legislature," the complaint states.

Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, said that AB 1513 "was passed under the cover of darkness and in the final hours of session without any discussion and we all know why. It was rammed through to hide the fact that Fowler Packing, Gerawan Farming and other companies were unfairly targeted by the UFW and their cronies in the Legislature."

Patterson said the bill "shredded the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under law and was passed by the legislators who swore to protect that sacred right. It is another example of the consequences of dictatorial, one-party rule."

Gerawan and Fowler declaratory judgment that the provisions exempting them from the benefits of the law are unconstitutional, and a permanent injunction against enforcement.

Assemblyman Williams did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. Nor did the UFW or the state's labor agencies.

---

---

https://www.facebook.com/AAFCalifornia/

no info seems semi legit, tho grifters post on it?

fresno

about_contact_and_basic_info

vs lanier wencong fa atty

[### Fowler Packing Company, Inc. et al v. Lanier et al

PacerMonitor

https://www.pacermonitor.com › public › case › Fowler_...](https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/10565735/Fowler_Packing_Company,_Inc_et_al_v_Lanier_et_al)

Jan 22, 2016 — ... Wencong Fa Pacific Legal Foundation contact info. Defendant. Christine Baker. Oakland, CA 94612. Defendant. David M. Lanier. Sacramento, CA ...

Fowler Packing Company, Inc. et al v. Lanier et al

California Eastern District Court

Docket

Parties (6)

Related Cases (1)

Opinions (16)

Docket last updated: 12 hours ago

Friday, November 17, 2023

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy M. Francel for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/17/2023: On 11/16/2023, the parties filed a121 joint stipulation to extend the time to file an application for attorneys' fees and costs by an additional 120 days. Good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the parties' request. Plaintiff Fowler Packing Company, Inc. shall file an application for attorneys' fees and costs by no later than 3/14/2024. If the parties are able to resolve the issue of attorneys' fees and costs on their own, without the need for further motion practice, then by no later than 3/14/2024, the parties shall file a notice informing the court that a motion for attorneys' fees and costs will not be filed in this action. (Text Only Entry) (Francel, M.)

Thursday, November 16, 2023

STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Extension of Time to File Application for Attorney's Fees and Costs by Fowler Packing Company, Inc..(Schwarz, David)

Att: 1 Proposed Order re JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS

---

reason mag

A federal appeals court last week took the highly unusual step of finding a U.S. constitutional cause of action in a challenge to a California state law—the latest wrinkle in a long-running and bitter dispute between a farmworkers' union and two large Central Valley fruit growers.

The California legislature approved a law last year that was designed to protect the state's businesses after two court decisions left them open to unforeseen liabilities regarding the minimum wage. The measure, Assembly Bill 1513, passed by solid majorities, was a sign of concern about broad economic harm if companies who had acted in good faith were forced to pay various fines for some commonly accepted payment practices.

This legislative overhaul of the state's wage-and-hour law waived all penalties if, by this Thursday, the companies paid their piece-rate workers back wages for any unpaid rest periods. The legislation would have been largely noncontroversial, except that it included carve-outs for two Fresno-based fruit growers—Fowler Packing Co. and Gerawan Farming. In other words, the law apparently applied to every California business, except for these particular companies, both of which had run afoul of a union.

According to A.B. 1513's language, the bill does not apply to "Claims for paid rest or recovery periods or pay for other nonproductive time that were made in any case filed prior to April 1, 2015, when the case contained by that date an allegation that the employer has intentionally stolen, diminished, or otherwise deprived employees of wages through the use of fictitious worker names or names of workers that were not actually working." That portion exempts the two companies because of an allegation made in a lawsuit.

These two firms allege that they were exempted from the benefits of the new law because the UFW had threatened to otherwise oppose the legislation, according to a *Sacramento Bee* report. The measure, by the way, was pushed through at the end of the legislative session as a "gut-and-amend" deal—language was stripped out of an existing bill and replaced at the last minute with new language. Such bills circumvent requirements for a full set of hearings and legislative vetting.

The district court dismissed the companies' complaint. But in the recent ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed that decision and sent it back for further review.

Although the written opinion is still forthcoming, this is a significant ruling that focuses attention on the concept of equal protection, which was the main allegation made in the lawsuit. As their complaint argued, a key section of the law "not only arbitrarily excludes and punishes one employer based solely on an unproven allegation. It arbitrarily includes and protects employers, alleged to have used ghost workers, so long as they were sued after April 1, 2015. … (T)he ghost worker allegation carve-out is simply a mechanism to subject Fowler to disparate and punitive legislative treatment based solely on an allegation of wrongdoing."

The appeals court, however, rejected the farms' claim that the law had violated "bill of attainder" provisions in the U.S. Constitution. That refers to an act by any legislature that inflicts punishment without the protections of due process or judicial review—i.e., "trial by legislature." The plaintiffs had argued that the California Legislature exempted those companies based on some union allegations and was a form of punishment against them, in that it singled out Fowler and Gerawan, and did so without any legitimate, nonpunitive purpose.

"By denying those employers the protection that every other employer enjoys, the Legislature essentially adjudged them to be guilty of egregious conduct. But the Constitution does not give legislatures the power to determine guilt, it grants that authority to courts," explained the Pacific Legal Foundation's Wencong Fa in a column in the *San Francisco Daily Journal*. The foundation had filed an amicus brief on behalf of the companies and several farm organizations, including the California Farm Bureau and Western Grower.

The Fowler and Gerawan labor disputes have been a long-running California saga. The UFW has had a variety of disputes with Fowler. In the Gerawan situation, the company says the UFW had re-emerged at the farm after a long hiatus, claiming to be the rightful representative of the farmworkers there. The state Agricultural Labor Relations Board had refused to even count the ballots in a union de-certification election there—and imposed a seemingly unwanted contract on workers there. It's become a national news story and litigation continues.

A.B. 1513 was supported even by some agricultural organizations because of the advantages it provides to the industry in general. There's little disagreement it was the result of tough negotiations—a point the Brown administration has made in support for the law. But that doesn't mean Fowler and Gerawan don't make a valid argument. The new law could be of overall benefit to most California agricultural companies while still unfairly singling out two companies involved in disputes with one of the groups involved in those negotiations.

The official Assembly bill analysis puts the issue in perspective: "Supporters argue that this bill is a fair compromise for both employers and workers, addressing a situation where there was a significant development in case law. … Opponents argue that these arbitrary provisions set forth a troubling precedent that represents political targeting that sacrifices some companies to continued legal exposure in exchange for legal protections afforded to others."

Fowler and Gerawan asked the state to suspend enforcement of this week's deadline pending the outcome of the case as the federal courts take the rare step of reviewing a constitutional challenge to piece of state legislation.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. This article was first published in Calwatchdog.comhttp://calwatchdog.com/2016/12/13/court-oks-constitutional-challenge-new-state-law-affecting-farm-industry/

---