AWPA violation properly alleged based on failure to pay wages due under Wagner-Peyser Act
How later courts described this case
- AWPA violation properly alleged based on failure to pay wages due under Wagner-Peyser Act
- “No principle of statutory construction prevents a private right of action conferred by one statutory regime from drawing substance from provisions of another regime which does not provide such a right of action.”
- employer's reliance on agency's erroneous legal ruling is a defense
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent because I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that “the district court erred in its factual premise that the DOL had approved in advance the challenged wage payments offered and then made by the growers_” Op. at 341. The majority opinion continues that on that account the district court “necessarily erred in holding that the growers’ reasonable reliance on that approval barred any recovery by the workers.” Op. at 341.
I think that the district court’s factual premise that the DOL had approved in advance the challenged wage payments is not clearly erroneous, thus I do not believe that it erred in holding that the growers’ reasonable reliance on that approval barred any recovery by the workers.
I would affirm.