U.S. District Judge Joseph Greenaway's decision to let stand
the wage charges, which were brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, helps
explain the court's thinking about the claims of undocumented workers. First, he
rejected Wal-Mart's argument that because the workers are illegal, they can't
seek relief from the law. Greenaway wrote, "This court only joins a growing
chorus acknowledging the right of workers to seek relief for work already
performed under the Fair Labor Standards Act."
Next, he rejected Wal-Mart's assertion that since the janitors
worked for contractors rather than Wal-Mart directly, Wal-Mart was not their
employer. Greenaway also rejected Wal-Mart's claim that the wage issue should be
dismissed because it had paid above minimum wage to some of the workers and
"near" minimum wage to several others. "Simply put," Greenaway wrote, "payment
of 'near' the lawful minimum wage is not payment of the minimum wage."
On the allegations of false imprisonment, the workers will
have the opportunity, as a class, to sock Wal-Mart with punitive damages, should
they win this issue at trial. Linsey says he'll be able to present testimony not
only from workers who were locked into the stores but from their friends, family
members and neighbors who sometimes couldn't find the workers because of their
confinement.
Here's Nathan Newman on why the current absence of the RICO charge from the suit is probably a good thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment