U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 20— MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— GENERAL PROVISIONS › Part Part A— Enforcement Provisions

29 U.S.C. § 1855

Discrimination prohibited

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Prohibited activities

No person shall intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, discharge, or in any manner discriminate against any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker because such worker has, with just cause, filed any complaint or instituted, or caused to be instituted, any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceedings, or because of the exercise, with just cause, by such worker on behalf of himself or others of any right or protection afforded by this chapter.

(b) Proceedings for redress of violations

A migrant or seasonal agricultural worker who believes, with just cause, that he has been discriminated against by any person in violation of this section may, within 180 days after such violation occurs, file a complaint with the Secretary alleging such discrimination. Upon receipt of such complaint, the Secretary shall cause such investigation to be made as he deems appropriate. If upon such investigation, the Secretary determines that the provisions of this section have been violated, the Secretary shall bring an action in any appropriate United States district court against such person. In any such action the United States district courts shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to restrain violation of subsection (a) and order all appropriate relief, including rehiring or reinstatement of the worker, with back pay, or damages.

(Pub. L. 97–470, title V, § 505, Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2598.)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 10 cases, 1983–2009 · leading case: Aviles v. Kunkle, 765 F. Supp. 358 (S.D. Tex. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Aviles v. Kunkle, 765 F. Supp. 358 (S.D. Tex. 1991). · cites it 4× “29 U.S.C. § 1855 (a): Retaliation activities prohibited under the AWPA.”
Centeno-Bernuy v. Perry, 302 F. Supp. 2d 128 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. § 1855 (a). The elements of an MSAWPA retaliation claim are established here.”
Eustacio Martinez v. Kyle Shinn & Karen Shinn, & Shinn & Son, Inc., 992 F.2d 997 (9th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “§ 1822 (c); and (6) retaliatory firing of and refusal to rehire plaintiffs, 29 U.S.C. § 1855 (a). The court awarded nine of the plaintiffs lost wages for their retaliation claims, and awarded three of the plaintiffs an additional $5000 each for emotional distress.”
Elmer Horrach Irizarry v. Hon. Carlos Quiros, Etc., Garden State Serv. Coop. Ass'n, Inc., 722 F.2d 869 (1st Cir. 1983). “§ 2000e-3(a) (unlawful employment practice to discriminate against someone for participating in enforcement proceedings); Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, ante, 29 U.S.C. § 1855 (prohibiting discrimination for filing suit under the act).”
Villalobos v. North Carolina Growers Ass'n Inc., 252 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.P.R. 2002). · cites it 2× “AWPA’s section 1855(b), however, directs migrant agricultural workers who believe that they have been discriminated by any person covered under the Act to file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor within 180 days, 29 U.S.C. § 1855 (b). Defendants avail themselves of this…”
Escobar v. Baker, 814 F. Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1993). “120(2); (3) plaintiffs’ claim that Dobbins and Soto breached contracts with the plaintiffs; and (4) plaintiffs’ claims that Dobbins and Baker retaliated against plaintiffs in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1855 (a) and RCW 19.-30.190(4).”
Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 585 F.3d 310 (7th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “"); 29 U.S.C. § 1855 (a) (Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act) (proscribing retaliation against worker who "has, with just cause, filed any complaint.”
Hernandez v. Ruiz, 812 F. Supp. 734 (S.D. Tex. 1993). “29 U.S.C. § 1855 (a) (emphasis added). If, as Defendant argues, Congress had intended the AWPA’s private right of action to apply only to workers, Congress could have similarly narrowed the language of § 1854.”
Sandoval v. Rizzuti Farms, Ltd., 656 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (E.D. Wash. 2009). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1855 (a). 3. “Individuals shall be free from interference, restraint, or coercion from labor employers, or their agents, when engaging in ‘concerted activities’ for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protections under terms of employment.”
Kevin Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plast (7th Cir. 2009). “”); 29 U.S.C. § 1855 (a) (Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act) (pro- scribing retaliation against worker who “has, with just cause, filed any complaint .”
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.