# Donaldson v. United States Department of Labor

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 3, 1991 · 930 F.2d 339

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8989794

## Case

- **Full name:** Lucius DONALDSON George G. Melbourne the Farmworker Rights Organization Nelson Felix, and Philama Jean Dore Saintane Dore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR William E. Brock, Secretary, United States Department of Labor William Haltigan, Regional Administrator, Region III Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service Kent Barley Stanley Bauserman Robert S. Boyd Harvey L. Brumback Drilake Farms, Inc. Fruit Hill Orchard Glaize Virginia Orchards W.R. Kiser Marker-Miller Orchards Kenneth McDonald Roy McDonald Orchard Management Company Harold G. Nichols R & T Packing C.L. Robinson Corp. Reb & Co. Rinker Orchards, Inc. D.K. Russell & Sons, Inc. Senseny South Corporation Bruce Swing Timber Ridge Fruit Farm Westwood Farm, Inc. Robert Wyatt Triple S. Associates White Hall Orchards Hearty-Virginia, Inc. Fredrickson, Inc. H.F. & T. Byrd, Inc. Mt. Clifton Fruit Co. John D. Wood Darrell Worley Ewers Orchards Roland Snapp Whitham Orchards, Inc. Donald J. Kulick, Administrator for Regional Management, and Long Creek Farm G. Hardy Grim
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 3, 1991
- **Citations:** 930 F.2d 339; 1991 WL 44920
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Widener
- **Judges:** Carolina, McMillan, Phillips, Western, Widener
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8989794

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8989794. Public record. Not legal advice.