Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Berrocal v. Fernandez
85 P.3d 969 (Wa. Ct. App. 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55585
Description
Employees Required to Live at Ranch Where They Worked Were Not Categorically Excluded from Washington’s Minimum Wage Law
Abstract
Reversing the trial court’s summary judgment for employers,
Washington Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiff employees were not
exempt from the state’s minimum wage law because they lived
at the ranch where they worked. Plaintiffs—two men who worked
at a sheep ranch under the H-2A guest worker program—sued
their joint employers (the ranch operators and the California
company that brought plaintiffs into the country). Plaintiffs
charged that defendants failed to pay state-mandated minimum wage.
Defendants cross-complained for breach of contract because
plaintiffs quit their jobs. Plaintiffs earned $650 per month (and
room and board) and performed a variety of agricultural duties on
the sheep ranch. They were required to live at the ranch and be
available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Plaintiffs
alleged that they worked more than twelve hours per day, or an
hourly wage of less than $1.80. The trial court granted summary
judgment for defendants on the wage claim. On appeal plaintiffs
argued that employees (including those who resided at the
workplace) who spent substantial time on call were excluded only
when they were not performing their duties. Applying the
“last antecedent” rule of construction to interpret the
significance of a qualifying phrase in the wage statute, the
appellate court ruled that plaintiffs were not categorically
excluded, as defendants argued and the trial court held, but
excluded only when not actively working. The appellate court
remanded and directed the trial court to determine which hours were
compensable by using a four-factor test.
