U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 20— MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— MIGRANT AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTIONS

29 U.S.C. § 1822

Wages, supplies, and other working arrangements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Payment of wages

Each farm labor contractor, agricultural employer, and agricultural association which employs any migrant agricultural worker shall pay the wages owed to such worker when due.

(b) Purchase of goods or services by worker

No farm labor contractor, agricultural employer, or agricultural association shall require any migrant agricultural worker to purchase any goods or services solely from such farm labor contractor, agricultural employer, or agricultural association.

(c) Violation of terms of working arrangement

No farm labor contractor, agricultural employer, or agricultural association shall, without justification, violate the terms of any working arrangement made by that contractor, employer, or association with any migrant agricultural worker.

(Pub. L. 97–470, title II, § 202, Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2591.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 90 days from Jan. 14, 1983, see section 524 of Pub. L. 97–470, set out as a note under section 1801 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2021 · leading case: Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 2d 578 (W.D. Tex. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 2d 578 (W.D. Tex. 1999). · cites it 16× “Compliance with the Terms of the Working Arrangement: Alleged Violations of 29 U.S.C. § 1822 (c) A. The Law B. The 1996 Plaintiffs C.”
Alfaro-Huitron v. WKI Outsourcing Solutions, 982 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2020). · cites it 5× “§ 1821 (f), and working arrangements, see 29 U.S.C. § 1822 (c). Six Plaintiffs asserted that Cervantes violated the AWPA’s certificate-of- registration requirement.”
De Leon-Granados v. Eller & Sons Trees, Inc., 581 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (N.D. Ga. 2008). · cites it 5× “29 U.S.C. §§ 1822 (a) & (c). The wage provision of section 1822 is not limited to wages due under the AWPA but instead provides that “wages must be paid when due, without limiting the source of the obligation.”
Villalobos v. North Carolina Growers Ass'n, 42 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D.P.R. 1999). · cites it 7× “Plaintiffs’ second claim alleges that the terms of the clearance order were false or misleading, in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 1822 and 1823 because: Many of the Plaintiffs’ jobs were not in tobacco; there was not enough work for all Plaintiffs; Defendants did not uniformly…”
Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F. Supp. 621 (D.N.J. 1986). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. §§ 1822 (c), 1832(c). Regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor indicate that ordinarily, “ ‘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…”
Doe v. D.M. Camp & Sons, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (E.D. Cal. 2008). · cites it 4× “failing to pay wages when due in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1822 (a). Doc. 65, Complaint, at 29:11-17.”
Rodriguez Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Berrybrook Farms, Inc., 672 F. Supp. 1009 (W.D. Mich. 1987). · cites it 2× “Similarly, plaintiffs allege the following common questions of law: 1) whether defendants’ imposition of a rental fee constitutes a violation of the terms of a working arrangement with respect to housing contrary to AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1822 ; 2) whether the defendants’ acts were…”
Gonsalez Moreno v. Milk Train, Inc., 182 F. Supp. 2d 590 (W.D. Tex. 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 1821 (f) by knowingly providing false and misleading information regarding the conditions of employment; (3) 29 U.S.C. § 1822 (c) by failing to comply with the terms of the working arrangement; (4) 29 U.”
Elizondo v. Podgorniak, 70 F. Supp. 2d 758 (E.D. Mich. 1999). · cites it 5× “§ 1821 (a), violated the 29 U.S.C. § 1822 (a) requirement that Defendants pay wages when due, violated the record keeping provisions of 29 U.”
Eustacio Martinez v. Kyle Shinn & Karen Shinn, & Shinn & Son, Inc., 992 F.2d 997 (9th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “§ 1821 (d); (3) failure to pay wages when due, 29 U.S.C. § 1822 (a); *999 (4) failure to post a Department of Labor poster in a conspicuous location readily accessible to plaintiffs, 29 U.”
Colunga v. Young, 722 F. Supp. 1479 (W.D. Mich. 1989). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. § 1822 (c). As stated earlier, Young complied with the agreements concerning cleaning and loading.”
Aviles v. Kunkle, 765 F. Supp. 358 (S.D. Tex. 1991). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. § 1822 (c): Violation of the terms of the working arrangement.”
Show all 41 citing cases →
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.