3. Fruit Orchards Farm in the Central Valley contracts with Agave Employment Age

Question

3. Fruit Orchards Farm in the Central Valley contracts with Agave Employment Agency which is expressly authorized to recruit and hire farm workers for the peach harvest. Agave recruits 15 migrant workers from out of state, gives them each a train ticket for $50 to get to the farm, and $25 for meals. Agave promised the workers good working and living conditions. The Agave workers work side-by-side with the Fruit Orchards workers, receive the same pay and do the same work. However, they are supervised by and receive their paychecks from Agave, which has a contract for the farm labor services with Fruit Orchards. The migrant workers experienced terrible living and working conditions, and multiple violations of labor laws. Nevertheless, Fruit Orchards does not involve itself in any of these matters and simply pays Agave for the labor services provided to pick the fruit, leaving these details up to Agave. The migrant workers then sue both Agave and Fruit Orchards. Agave admits liability to the workers, but does not have enough money to cover the damages. Fruit Orchards denies responsibility. You are the judge who is hearing this case. a) What legal arguments would the workers make that Fruit Orchards is the principal of Agave? b) What legal arguments would Fruit Orchards make that it is not the principal of Agave? c) What would your ruling be as the judge of this case?

Explanation / Answer

a)In this case the Fruit Orchards Farm has contracted with Agave Employment agency and expressly authorized Agave to recruit employees and the authorization is communicated to the third parties or the employees by the principal. Express authority is the strongest from of authority mostly in written form. Based on the express authority given to the Agave Agencies, the workers can argue that Fruit Orchard is the principal and has all the liabilities applicable for principal in this case.

b) The Fruit Orchard can put forward the arguments that Agave has promised good living conditions and wages in the contract for the migrant workers but did not carry out the tasks as per the agreement. The interest of Fruit Orchards lies in providing good working and living conditions for the workers but the same was not done by the agent Agave and negligently completed its task in an improper manner without fulfilling the responsibilities. Agave Employment agencies did not show loyalty towards their work and hence the conditions in contract are not fulfilled by the agent. Fruit Orchard can argue based on these legal arguments that they cannot be considered as the principal of Agave.

c) By studying this case I can come into the conclusion that both Fruit Orchard and Agave agencies have the liability for the terrible living and working conditions of migrant workers. Both Fruit Orchard and Agave Employment agencies share the position of joint employers for migrant workers as both the employers had the right to control their work. Fruit Orchard cannot escape from its liability since the workers were working for them and it was their responsibility to ensure the agencies do not treat the employees in wrong way. The safety of the employees should be taken care by both Agave and Fruit Orchard and hence both the firms should share the damages.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 3
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.