29 U.S.C. § 1801
Congressional statement of purpose
It is the purpose of this chapter to remove the restraints on commerce caused by activities detrimental to migrant and seasonal agricultural workers; to require farm labor contractors to register under this chapter; and to assure necessary protections for migrant and seasonal agricultural workers, agricultural associations, and agricultural employers.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 164
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2003).
Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2003). “ROSENTHAL, District Judge: This appeal requires this court to examine the family business exemption from the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq. Appellants, two Texas-based migrant farmworkers, alleged that appellee, the…”
Chamber of Com. of United States of Am. v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011). “The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), 29 U. S. C. §1801 et seq., requires employers to secure a registration certificate from the Department of Labor before engaging in any “farm labor contracting activity.”
Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F. Supp. 621 (D.N.J. 1986). “, and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“MSPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. Accordingly, they are liable to plaintiffs for unpaid minimum *623 wages for work performed on defendants’ blueberry farm in the summer of 1984.”
Martinez v. Combs, 231 P.3d 259 (Cal. 2010). “2 (2009)) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.; 29 C.F.R. § 500.”
Mario Salinas v. Com. Interiors, Inc., 848 F.3d 125 (4th Cir. 2017). “Congress also endorsed the FLSA’s joint employment doctrine in enacting the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq. (the “Migrant Workers Act”), which uses the same definition of “employ” as the FLSA.”
Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 2d 578 (W.D. Tex. 1999). “Plaintiffs contend that defendants violated a number of the statutory rights of employees created by the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.”
Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers Bodine Produce Co., Inc. Robert Fletcher, D/B/A Fletcher Farms, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990). “2583 (codified as 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.). Section 2050a(b) of the prior act provided that the court may award "up to and including .”
Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638 (1990). “2583 , as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1801 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp.”
Gomez v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 3d 986 (E.D. Cal. 2016). “Plaintiffs complaint alleged nine causes of action: (1) violation of the Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.; (2) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1194.”
Quinteros v. Sparkle Cleaning, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 762 (D. Maryland 2008). “Vann as the test used in the Fourth Circuit for joint employment, this case interprets “joint employment” as used in the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq, and not the FLSA.”
Alfaro-Huitron v. WKI Outsourcing Solutions, 982 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2020). “Plaintiffs brought claims against Cervantes for breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801–72, based on Cervantes’s failure to employ them after a labor contractor, allegedly…”
Leandre Layton v. DHL Express, Inc., 686 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2012). “In this circuit, many joint-employment FLSA claims have arisen in cases also asserting a joint-employment relationship under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. Because the AWPA defines the term “employ” by reference to…”
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.