Filed Date: Nov. 15, 2017
Closed Date: Dec. 28, 2022
Clearinghouse coding complete
The Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC) and several private parties filed this action November 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. They named North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper and Administrative Office of the Courts Director Marion R. Warren as defendants. The ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and a private practitioner served as plaintiffs’ counsel. At issue was a North Carolina state law which limited the ability of farmworkers to organize and enter into collective bargaining agreements. FLOC argued that the law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They requested preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as a declaratory judgment. The case was then assigned to Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld. (On May 14, 2018, the case was also assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Loretta C. Biggs.)
The law at issue (“the Act”) constrained farmworkers in two ways. First, it made agreements by agricultural employers to administer payroll union dues deductions requested by employees invalid and unenforceable. And second, the Act made certain settlement agreements invalid and unenforceable (those that required an agricultural employer to recognize or enter an agreement with a union). The plaintiffs argued that the Act violated their rights to free expression and association under the First Amendment, because the Act only restricted farmworker unions. Thus, the restriction allegedly amounted to unlawful speaker-based discrimination.
FLOC also argued that the Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment, because it “discriminatorily revoked contractual rights and privileges from a workforce that was overwhelmingly comprised of Latino non-citizens and a union with a membership comprised largely of workers from Mexico.” And it alleged that the Act violated the plaintiffs’ right to make and enforce contracts under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As with the First Amendment claim, the allegation of disparate treatment arose from the choice to regulate farmworker unions and no other unions. Finally, FLOC claimed that the Act was an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder because it singled out and punished FLOC for its labor organizing activity. FLOC was the only farmworker union in North Carolina, meaning that all of the Act’s restrictions fell on FLOC.
Defendants Cooper and Warren moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on January 25, 2018. The parties agreed to dismiss Governor Cooper from the action on February 5, 2018. That same day, FLOC amended its complaint to remove Governor Cooper and add North Carolina Attorney General Joshua Stein as a defendant. The amended complaint described Stein’s role in enforcing the Act and updated FLOC’s allegations of harm suffered. It was otherwise substantially similar to the original complaint.
The plaintiffs had moved for a preliminary injunction on November 20, 2017. 2017 WL 10846442. They withdrew this motion on February 5, 2018, and filed an amended motion for a preliminary injunction the next day. This time, they argued that the Act should be enjoined because an injunction against an unconstitutional law would protect the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights but could not harm the defendants, who lacked an interest in enforcing an unconstitutional law.
Defendant Warren again moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on February 19, 2018. Likewise, on March 2, 2018, defendant Stein moved to dismiss the first amended complaint. Both defendants argued that they were protected by North Carolina’s sovereign immunity. And they argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the plaintiffs could not establish an injury in fact or a connection between any such injury and the defendants.
Magistrate Judge Auld filed a report and recommendation (R&R) on August 21, 2018. He recommended that the court grant Director Warren’s dismissal motion, deny Attorney General Stein’s dismissal motion, and grant FLOC’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Biggs reviewed and adopted the August 21 R&R in an order filed on September 20, 2018. 2018 WL 4518696.
The R&R explained that Director Warren had only general enforcement authority over the Act. This was insufficient under Ex parte Young’s exception to state sovereign immunity, which required a “special relationship” between allegedly harmful conduct and a state actor. The court accordingly dismissed the claims against Warren. On the other hand, the complaint alleged that Stein had direct enforcement responsibility for violations of the Act. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, this was enough to satisfy the Ex parte Young requirements. Because the power of Stein’s office sufficiently connected him with the duty of enforcement, he was a proper party to the suit. The court also rejected Stein’s argument that FLOC lacked standing. The magistrate therefore recommended denying–and Judge Biggs in fact denied–his motion to dismiss.
The R&R as adopted by Judge Biggs recommended granting FLOC’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The R&R explained that, among other things, the Act did not appear rationally related to its stated purpose of reducing farmers’ regulatory burdens and restricting harassment from organizing activity. The plaintiffs therefore demonstrated a likelihood of success on at least their Fourteenth Amendment claim. Likewise, the court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the four other familiar requirements, so the court granted their request for a preliminary injunction.
The North Carolina Farm Bureau (NCFB) moved to intervene as a defendant on January 25, 2018. 2018 WL 3491807. Judge Biggs denied this motion in her September 20 order adopting the R&R. On October 18, 2018, the NCFB moved to alter the court’s judgment that it could not intervene in the case. And on October 19, 2018, NCFB appealed the court’s order denying its motion to intervene. In denying the motion to intervene, Judge Biggs had found that the NCFB’s position overlapped with that of the Attorney General, making intervention redundant. NCFB’s motion to alter judgment highlighted new evidence: a series of tweets from Attorney General Stein. These tweets explained that Stein’s participation in the case was part of a fight for union rights. Since NCFB “and its members [were] relying on him to fight in court against union members,” NCFB thought that intervention remained necessary. The court was not persuaded; on June 18, 2019, Judge Biggs denied the NCFB’s motion by adopting an R&R prepared by Judge Auld. 2019 WL 2517063. NCFB moved to dismiss its appeal on July 18, 2019, and the court granted this motion July 19, 2019.
Defendant Stein and plaintiff FLOC filed motions for summary judgment on August 14, 2020. The court referred the summary judgment motions to Magistrate Judge Auld, who filed an R&R on February 25, 2021. The court entered an order adopting the R&R on March 30, 2021. In this order, it granted in part and denied in part both Stein’s and FLOC’s motions for summary judgment. The court granted FLOC’s motion on its claims that the Act's provision regarding dues violated their First Amendment and (First-Amendment-related) equal protection rights, but granted Stein’s motion for summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs’ other claims, including the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims regarding the settlement provision.
FLOC appealed the court’s judgment on its motion for summary judgment on April 28, 2021. Defendant Stein likewise appealed the court’s judgment on his motion for summary on May 5, 2021. The Fourth Circuit consolidated these two appeals. The parties then filed an unopposed motion for abeyance. The Fourth Circuit granted this motion on July 15, 2021, and, as requested, suspended briefing in the consolidated appeal pending the district court’s issuance of final injunctive relief.
The parties returned to district court to litigate their proposed remedies given the court’s summary judgment rulings. Magistrate Judge Auld issued an R&R addressing this issue on August 18, 2021. In it, he recommended that the court grant declaratory and permanent injunctive relief to FLOC, and that the court should dissolve its preliminary injunction. The parties agreed that permanent injunctive relief was appropriate but disagreed about the form of the injunction. The Act merely added impermissible language to an existing statute. So rather than rewrite the Act (as requested by Stein), Judge Auld recommended that the court invalidate and sever the Act. This would leave the rest of the statute, which FLOC did not challenge, in effect. Judge Biggs adopted the R&R on September 15, 2021, thereby enjoining Attorney General Stein from enforcing the Act and dissolving the preliminary injunction.
FLOC amended its notice of appeal on September 20, 2021. And on September 21, 2021, defendant Stein appealed the court’s September 15 judgment.
On December 28, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny relief as to all but the provision regarding dues. As to that latter provision, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision that it violated the First Amendment and vacated the accompanying injunction. The Fourth Circuit, in disagreeing with the district court, reasoned that the provision in question only prohibited a narrow type of behavior regarding settlement agreements and that that narrow interpretation did not violate the right to association found in the First Amendment. In affirming the remainder of the district court's ruling, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs were not part of a suspect class and that any disparate impact on the plaintiffs, who were predominantly Latino, did not constitute an equal protection violation. 56 F.4th 339.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Hank Minor (11/19/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6224972/parties/farm-labor-organizing-committee-v-roy-cooper/
Biggs, Loretta Copeland (North Carolina)
BRAUN, KATRINA M. (North Carolina)
BROOK, CHRISTOPHER A. (North Carolina)
BROOKE, CAROL (North Carolina)
BRITO, OLGA E. (North Carolina)
BRAUN, KATRINA M. (North Carolina)
BROOK, CHRISTOPHER A. (North Carolina)
BROOKE, CAROL (North Carolina)
DEMAS, ARIANNA MARIE (North Carolina)
GRAUNKE, KRISTI L. (North Carolina)
HAUSS, BRIAN M. (North Carolina)
MAFFETORE, JACLYN A. (North Carolina)
RIPLEY, CLERMONT FRASER (North Carolina)
SEAWELL, EMILY E. (North Carolina)
SOLORZANO, JULIA M. (North Carolina)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6224972/farm-labor-organizing-committee-v-roy-cooper/
Last updated March 8, 2024, 3:01 a.m.
State / Territory: North Carolina
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 15, 2017
Closing Date: Dec. 28, 2022
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are farmworkers in North Carolina and a farmworkers' union, The Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC).
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State of North Carolina, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Immigration/Border: