The Legal Services Corporation and its network of grantees has compiled
a record of harassment and abuse of America’s farmers. As part of their
ongoing campaign of judicial terrorism, LSC-funded grantees sue farmers
on the flimsiest of charges to extort money or just run them out of business.
CRLA Terrorizes California Farm
In the course of a 1990 harassment campaign against Gerawan Farms, California
Rural Legal Assistance vandalized the farm’s migrant housing facilities
so they could have an excuse to sue the grower for housing violations.
Repair contractors testified that the damage to sinks, doors, windows,
toilets and other items was clearly intentional and that CRLA not only
arranged for this vandalism but prevented repair efforts. One contractor
stated that a CRLA representative even told him to “get the hell out of
here” when he came to make repairs. So extensive was the vandalism that
Fresno County housing inspectors testified that the housing was being damaged
faster than it could be repaired. Not content with that outrageous behavior,
CRLA also used a radio station to invite workers to move in to the Gerawan’s
housing when space was in fact limited in order to accuse them of overcrowding
migrants. In addition to those outrages, it was discovered that many of
the plaintiffs in the suit never even worked for Gerawan Farms or just
did not exist. Several of the other plaintiffs did not want to be a part
of the suit but CRLA ignored their requests to be dropped. CRLA’s vendetta
against Gerawan Farms cost the taxpayers more than $450,000.
See Congressional Testimony of Dan Gerawan, June 15, 1995
LSC Grantees File Baseless Lawsuit
In 1993, Texas Rural Legal Aid and the Migrant Legal Action Program sued the Snake Rivers Farmers Association for establishing eligibility requirements and different wage rates for operating irrigation equipment. The amazing aspect of this case is that none of the three plaintiffs stood to gain anything from the suit. One defendant who had sued to challenge the wage rates for operating irrigation equipment not only had no experience with the equipment in question but confessed to never working with the Snake Rivers Farmers Association. The court ruled he lacked standing in the case. Another defendant who challenged a requirement that a worker have 20 days experience to operate a particular type of irrigation equipment was also found to lack standing because he met the requirement . A third defendant challenging the same 20-day requirement had 6 days experience and was offered an apprentice position which would be upgraded after 14 days on the job. However, he turned down the offer and accepted a job as a firefighter. The court ruled he suffered no loss since he refused the job. As the court duly noted, TRLA and MLAP brought this case not to benefit their clients since they had clearly suffered no injury but to simply harass Snake River farmers.
See Snake River Farmers’ Ass. v. DOL, No. 91-35885 (US
App. Ct.) Nov. 1993
Illinois Farmer Sued for Not Giving Workers Rides
In 1993, the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago sued farmers Jim
and Beverly Witvoet because they did not drive their workers to and from
their fields every day. Legal Assistance argued that this was a violation
of their small farm exemption and should have it revoked. This exemption
provides family-run farms significant financial and regulatory relief by
not requiring costly adherence to the Agricultural Workers Protection Act
(AWPA).To keep the exemption, small farmers must “exclusively” handle all
labor contracting activity themselves which means that they can not hire
contractors to recruit and transport workers.The Witvoets had no such contractor.
However, Legal Assistance made the outlandish claim that the Witvoets
were still in violation of the contracting provision because they allowed
other people, including the workers, to provide rides. Legal Assistance
went so far as to argue that if a single migrant worker rides one yard
on a tractor driven by someone other than the Witvoets, then they are in
violation. The court rejected this preposterous interpretation noting that
a farmer would have to drive all over North America because he could not
rely on airlines, trains or bus lines to transport workers.
See Calderon v. Witvoet, No. 92-3231 (US Appeals Ct.)
July 1993
Ohio Cannery Sued for Hiring Workers
In 1994, Advocates for Basic Legal Equality (ABLE) sued Ohio cannery
operators, John and Jerry Schuett, for violating their small farm exemption.
It seems the Schuetts great sin was to go to neighboring farms and offer
farmhands without any immediate work an opportunity to work at their cannery.
ABLE argued that the Schuetts borrowing of workers violated the family
business exemption because the lending farmer recruited the workers through
contracting activity. The court rejected this tenuous linkage and noted
that the Schuetts activities benefited workers by providing them with jobs
when none were readily available.
See Flores v. Rios, No. 93-3670 (US App. Ct.) 1994
Legal Services Files Frivolous Litigation
In 1993, Farmworkers Legal Services of North Carolina sued Carolina
Vegetables, Inc. to obtain workers' compensation on behalf of a man who
slipped on a bar of soap outside the workers' showers. The state
court of appeals rejected the claim because the injury took place outside
of normal working hours and the man was lying anyway about how he sustained
the injury.
See Jauregui v. Carolina Vegetables, No. 9210IC1173, (NC App.
Ct.) 1993