Filed Date: Sept. 26, 2017
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On September 26, 2017, a former immigrant detainee of the Northwest Detention Center filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case was assigned to Judge Robert J. Bryan. The plaintiff sued The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO), the for-profit corporation that operated the detention center, under state law, claiming that GEO’s policy of paying immigrant detainees involved in the federal Voluntary Work Program only $1 per day for their labor violated the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA). The MWA set the minimum wage at $11 per hour. Represented by private counsel (Schroeter Goldmark & Bender; The Law Office of R. Andrew Free; and Sunbird Law), the plaintiff sought damages for lost wages.
On October 9, 2017, GEO filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. GEO alleged that federal law, which allowed for immigrant detainees to be paid $1 per day, preempted the MWA, a state law. The defendant also alleged that immigrant detainees did not count as employees under the MWA. On December 6, 2017, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that federal law did not conflict with the MWA, so it did not preempt it. The MWA also stated only that state detainees were not employees; it said nothing about federal detainees, so the court reasoned that immigrant detainees may be employees. 287 F.Supp.3d 1158.
On December 20, 2017, the defendant served an answer to the complaint that contained several counterclaims and affirmative defenses. GEO claimed that the plaintiff would be unjustly enriched if paid minimum wage, as his costs of living during his detainment were paid for by the detention center, so it sought the costs and expenses it incurred in providing for the plaintiff during his detainment. It also sought declaratory relief. The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss or strike most of the counterclaims and affirmative defenses on January 10, 2018. On February 28, 2018, the court denied most of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, although it did strike five of the defendant’s fifteen affirmative defenses. 297 F.Supp.3d 1130.
On March 29, 2018, GEO filed another motion to dismiss the case, this one for failure to join required parties. GEO had a contract with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that controlled how it managed the detention center. It alleged that paying minimum wage when the standard for ICE’s Voluntary Work Program was $1 per day would violate that contract. Because they had a stake in the case’s outcome, GEO alleged that DHS and ICE needed to be joined as parties. However, the defendant also alleged that DHS and ICE could not be joined because they had immunity. So, GEO concluded that the case should be dismissed. On April 26, 2018, the court denied this motion to dismiss and held that DHS and ICE were not necessary parties because the contract did not directly conflict with the MWA. 2018 WL 1963669.
The plaintiff sought class certification on March 23, 2018. The proposed class would consist of all civil immigration detainees who participated in the Voluntary Work Program at the Northwest Detention Center at any time between September 26, 2014, and the date of final judgment in the case. However, after being deposed by the defendant, the plaintiff decided that it was not in his best interests to serve as a class representative; in his deposition, the plaintiff admitted to having a history of violent crime, which could prejudice the rest of the class. On April 30, 2018, GEO filed a motion to deny class certification with prejudice, and the plaintiff withdrew his motion for class certification the next day.
On June 13, 2018, two new plaintiffs who could more adequately represent the class were added, and the original plaintiff was terminated as a plaintiff (but remained a counter defendant to GEO's counterclaims). The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to reflect this change. Eight days later, they filed a new motion for class certification.
On June 27, 2018, GEO moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and failure to join parties. On August 6, 2018, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, reasoning that issues remained to be solved regarding the defendant's possible immunity as a contractor providing services to the federal government. The court further held that the defendant's other grounds for dismissal (preemption, failure to state a claim based on the inapplicability of the MWA, and failure to join required government parties) were unpersuasive. 2018 WL 4150909.
On the same day, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court declined to make the finding that the class representatives could not represent the proposed class of detainees seeking for lost wages under the (MWA) because they lack work authorization and are thus "unemployable." The court further found that the proposed class satisfied the requirements for certification and thus certification was appropriate. The final certified class consisted of “[a]ll civil immigration detainees who participated in the Voluntary Work Program at the Northwest Detention Center at any time between September 26, 2014, and the date of final judgment in this matter.”
On August 23, 2018, the defendant filed a petition to appeal the order to certify class to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The defendant also appealed to the Ninth Circuit the August 6, 2018 order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss. In early November, the Ninth Circuit denied the defendant's petition to appeal the order granting class certification. A month later, the defendant-appellant moved to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of the district court's order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit granted this motion on December 10, 2018, and the appeal was dismissed.
For the first few months of 2019, activity in this suit consisted of litigation relating to various deadlines for trial dates and giving notice to class members.
On May 2, 2019, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or consolidate related litigation. The defendant argued that the suit should be dismissed or stayed because "the harm plaintiffs seek to remedy is entirely duplicative" of the State of Washington’s companion case, Washington v. The GEO Group Inc., resulting in wasted time, effort, and costs. The defendant contended that without dismissal or staying of the suit or at least consolidating the two suits, it would be prejudiced by having to litigate the issues and incur costs twice.
In a May 28, 2019, oral hearing, the court denied the portion of the defendant's motion to dismiss or stay, and granted in part the motion for consolidation. The court ordered that the suits be consolidated on the issues of liability only. The issue of damages would remain separate.
On August 22, 2019, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in the Washington case, where it argued that the suit, seeking to impose the state minimum wage for individuals in federal immigration detention, violated intergovernmental immunity principles. The United States urged "the Court to find that the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity bars the State of Washington from enforcing the MWA against GEO," even though the court had earlier rejected the intergovernmental immunity argument.
The parties engaged in months of back-and-forth litigation, filing multiple motions in limine and litigating a variety of discovery issues.
On January 21, 2021, the court granted in part plaintiffs' motion to strike GEO's jury demand. It held that a jury trial would be held on the MWA issue, albeit bifurcated as to liability and damages. The same jury would preside over each proceeding. If GEO prevailed on the liability issue, the jury would be excused and the proceedings would continue as to injunctive relief on a non-jury basis. Unjust enrichment claims brought by the State of Washington, however, would be tried entirely without a jury.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, but the court denied each of them on April 7, 2020. 2020 WL 1689728. Four issues were before the court: (1) whether plaintiffs were "employees" under MWA; (2) whether GEO was entitled to intergovernmental immunity; (3) GEO’s defense of derivative immunity; and (4) GEO's affirmative defense for offset/unjust enrichment. Judge Bryan decided each of these issues in favor of the plaintiff.
After an 11-day trial and three days of jury deliberations, Judge Bryan declared a mistrial on June 17, 2021 because the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The court set a new trial date for October 12, 2021.
The defendants filed a motion for an interlocutory order, hoping that the Ninth Circuit would consider whether the district court's adopted the correct interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions in its April 7 order. On September 20, 2021, Judge Bryan denied the motion.
On October 29, 2021, following the second trial and jury deliberation, the jury entered a verdict against GEO and awarded the plaintiffs almost $17.3 million in backpay. The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on November 2, 2021. Shortly thereafter, the defendants moved to reduce the jury award and to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. They also filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.
On December 8, 2021, the court granted the plaintiffs' earlier motion for pre-and post-judgment interest. Judge Bryan denied GEO's motion to reduce the jury award, as well as the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, but granted the defendants' motion to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. A week later, the court awarded the plaintiffs over $1.5 million in attorneys' fees and costs.
GEO appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit on December 10, 2021. On March 7, 2023, the Ninth Circuit certified three questions to the Washington Supreme Court. The three questions were 1) In the circumstances of this case, are the detained workers employees within the meaning of MWA? 2) If the answer to the first question is yes, does the MWA apply to work performed in comparable circumstances by civil detainees confined in a private detention facility operating under a contract with the State? 3) If the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second question is no, and assuming that the damage award to the detained workers is sustained, is that damage award an adequate legal remedy that would foreclose equitable relief to the State in the form of an unjust enrichment award?
Further proceedings in the Ninth Circuit were stayed pending the Washington Supreme Court's decision whether to accept review, and upon acceptance, pending receipt of answers to the certified questions.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Rebecca Strauss (7/20/2018)
Aaron Gurley (1/22/2020)
Jordan Katz (11/6/2021)
Michelle Wolk (4/17/2023)
Washington v. The GEO Group Inc., Western District of Washington (2017)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6159152/parties/nwauzor-v-the-geo-group-inc/
Angel, Allison N (Colorado)
Arango, Jacqueline M (Florida)
Armstrong, Shannon L (Oregon)
Asai, Kristin Mariko (Oregon)
Barnacle, Colin L (Colorado)
Arango, Jacqueline M (Florida)
Calabrese, Wayne Howard (Florida)
Cooper, Charles Justin (District of Columbia)
Donohue, J Matthew (Washington)
Ellison, Dawn A (District of Columbia)
Emery, Mark Thomas (District of Columbia)
Jr, Joseph Negron (Washington)
Kane, Tiernan (District of Columbia)
Kirk, Michael W. (District of Columbia)
Pusateri, Michael (District of Columbia)
Schipma, Scott A (District of Columbia)
Short, Carolyn P. (Pennsylvania)
Silverman, Lawrence D (Florida)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6159152/nwauzor-v-the-geo-group-inc/
Last updated April 9, 2024, 3:06 a.m.
State / Territory: Washington
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Immigrant Detention Labor Issues
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 26, 2017
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All civil immigration detainees who participated in the Voluntary Work Program at the Northwest Detention Center at any time between September 26, 2014, and the date of final judgment in this matter.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
The GEO Group, Inc., Private Entity/Person
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Amount Defendant Pays: $18,883,584
Issues
General/Misc.:
Immigration/Border:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: