29 C.F.R. § 500.72
Agreements with workers
(a) The Act prohibits farm labor contractors, agricultural employers and agricultural associations from violating, without justification, the terms of any working arrangements they have made with migrant or seasonal agricultural workers. Normally, “without justification” would not include situations in which failure to comply with the terms of any working arrangements was directly attributable to acts of God, due to conditions beyond the control of the person or to conditions which he could not reasonably foresee.
(b) Written agreements do not relieve any person of any responsibility that the person would otherwise have under the Act or these regulations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1986–2008 · leading case: Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F. Supp. 621 (D.N.J. 1986).
Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F. Supp. 621 (D.N.J. 1986). “” 29 C.F.R. § 500.72 (a). This court can find no case interpreting either the statute or the regulation, and will treat this as a question of first impression.”
Aviles v. Kunkle, 765 F. Supp. 358 (S.D. Tex. 1991). “” 29 C.F.R. § 500.72 (a), (b). Thus, an employer cannot escape liability through a specific writing contrary to the responsibilities levied upon him by the Act.”
Doe v. D.M. Camp & Sons, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (E.D. Cal. 2008). “” 29 C.F.R. § 500.72 . All of these sources essentially echo the language of the statute itself.”
Valenzuela v. Giumarra Vineyards Corp., 619 F. Supp. 2d 985 (E.D. Cal. 2008). “” 29 C.F.R. § 500.72 . All of these sources essentially echo the language of the statute itself.”
Avila v. A. Sam & Sons, 856 F. Supp. 763 (W.D.N.Y. 1994). “29 C.F.R. § 500.72 (a). Agricultural employers have been held responsible for promises of housing, work and transportation independently made by farm labor contractors to farm worker employees, and an agricultural employer’s failure to abide by these promises is a violation of…”
Villalobos v. North Carolina Growers Ass'n Inc., 252 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.P.R. 2002). “” 29 C.F.R. §§ 500.72 (b). Therefore, regardless of NCGA’s intentions in filing the job order, the defendants’ desire to hire H-2A workers — rather than Puerto Rican United States citizens — would not relieve them of their obligations under AWPA.”
Colon v. Casco, Inc., 716 F. Supp. 688 (D. Mass. 1989). “” 29 C.F.R. § 500.72 (a) and (b). One of the main stated purposes of the AWPA is to “assure necessary protections for migrant and seasonal agricultural workers.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.