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. § 1823

Safety and health of housing

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Compliance with substantive Federal and State safety and health standards

Except as provided in subsection (c), each person who owns or controls a facility or real property which is used as housing for migrant agricultural workers shall be responsible for ensuring that the facility or real property complies with substantive Federal and State safety and health standards applicable to that housing.

(b) Certification that applicable safety and health standards met; posting of certificate of occupancy; retention of certificate and availability for inspection and review; occupancy prior to inspection(1) Except as provided in subsection (c) and paragraph (2) of this subsection, no facility or real property may be occupied by any migrant agricultural worker unless either a State or local health authority or other appropriate agency has certified that the facility or property meets applicable safety and health standards. No person who owns or controls any such facility or property shall permit it to be occupied by any migrant agricultural worker unless a copy of the certification of occupancy is posted at the site. The receipt and posting of a certificate of occupancy does not relieve any person of responsibilities under subsection (a). Each such person shall retain the original certification for three years and shall make it available for inspection and review in accordance with section 1862 of this title.(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this subsection, if a request for the inspection of a facility or real property is made to the appropriate State or local agency at least forty-five days prior to the date on which it is occupied by migrant agricultural workers and such agency has not conducted an inspection by such date, the facility or property may be so occupied.(c) Applicability to providers of housing on a commercial basis to the general public

This section does not apply to any person who, in the ordinary course of that person’s business, regularly provides housing on a commercial basis to the general public and who provides housing to migrant agricultural workers of the same character and on the same or comparable terms and conditions as is provided to the general public.

(Pub. L. 97–470, title II, § 203, 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 38 cases, 1986–2019 · 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 33× “Housing Health and Safety Codes: Alleged Violations of 29 U.S.C. § 1823 (a) A. The Law B. The 1996 Plaintiffs C.”
Renteria-Marin v. Ag-Mart Produce, Inc., 537 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 11× “29 U.S.C. § 1823 (a)(b)(l). Also at issue is a provision that requires that each farm labor contractor, agricultural employer or agricultural association which provides housing to migrant farm workers post or present to such worker a statement of the terms and conditions of the…”
Howard v. Malcolm, 658 F. Supp. 423 (E.D.N.C. 1987). · cites it 11× “Both plaintiffs and defendant Godwin have filed objections; Godwin objects to recommendation of summary judgment against him, and plaintiffs object to the amount of damages recommended for violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1823 (b)(1). Both parties’ counsel have represented to Magistrate…”
Haywood v. Barnes, 109 F.R.D. 568 (E.D.N.C. 1986). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. § 1823 . 2. Defendants did not provide them with the required written disclosures of the terms and conditions relating to the occupancy of the housing.”
Leach v. Johnston, 812 F. Supp. 1198 (M.D. Fla. 1992). · cites it 4× “See 29 U.S.C. § 1823 (c). Thus, if a person resided at Johnston’s camp, he was expected to work (Id.”
Howard v. Malcolm, 629 F. Supp. 952 (E.D.N.C. 1986). · cites it 4× “failed to ensure that the housing used by the defendant Blanding to house the named plaintiffs in 1985 met the applicable state and federal substantive safety and health standards during the entire time it was used to house those named plaintiffs in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1823…”
Avila v. A. Sam & Sons, 856 F. Supp. 763 (W.D.N.Y. 1994). · cites it 5× “Housing Violations 29 U.S.C. § 1823 (a) provides in pertinent part as follows: [Ejach person who owns or controls a facility or real property which is used as housing for migrant agricultural workers shall be responsible for ensuring that the facility or real property complies…”
Herrera v. Singh, 103 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (E.D. Wash. 2000). · cites it 6× “Failure to comply with substantive federal and state safety and health standards applicable to worker housing owned or controlled by the employer ( 29 U.S.C. § 1823 (a)); 5. Failure to obtain certification by a state or local health authority that worker housing meets applicable…”
Sanchez v. Overmyer, 891 F. Supp. 1253 (N.D. Ohio 1995). · cites it 4× “29 U.S.C. § 1823 . 4. A person “controls” migrant agricultural workers’ housing if that person “is in charge of or has the power or authority to oversee, manage, superintend or administer the housing facility or real property either personally or through an authorized agent or…”
Elizondo v. Podgorniak, 70 F. Supp. 2d 758 (E.D. Mich. 1999). · cites it 4× “§§ 1821 (d)(1) and 1831(c)(1) and violated the health and safety provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 1823 (a). For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant summary judgment; in favor of Plaintiffs with respect to the issues of whether Defendants are agricultural workers and violated…”
Escobar v. Baker, 814 F. Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “§ 1821 (a); (3) plaintiffs’ claim that Baker violated the labor camp certification requirement under 29 U.S.C. § 1823 (b)(1); and (4) plaintiffs’ claim that Baker violated the recordkeeping requirements under 29 U.”
Rodriguez Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Berrybrook Farms, Inc., 672 F. Supp. 1009 (W.D. Mich. 1987). “Further, Berrybrook concedes that it failed to comply with state safety and health standards applicable to migrant housing ( 29 U.S.C. § 1823 ) between April 15, 1985 and May 17, 1985 at the Murdock and Steinke camps.”
Show all 38 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.