Appeals Court, Striking Down NY State Law, Rules Farm Workers Have Right to Organize
A panel of judges said in the decision that farm workers cannot be excluded from a decades-old amendment of the state constitution that grants employees certain workers rights, like forming or joining a union to handle labor disputes.
May 23, 2019 at 02:22 PM
5 minute read
A section of New York state law that prohibits farm workers from organizing and collectively bargaining with their employers violates a section of the state constitution, an appellate court in Albany ruled Thursday.
A panel of judges said in the decision that farm workers cannot be excluded from a decades-old amendment of the state constitution that grants employees certain workers rights, like forming or joining a union to handle labor disputes.
The ruling has the potential to add steam to a proposal being considered by the state Legislature that would codify into statute the right for farm workers to organize. The bill has yet to be approved by state lawmakers.
The New York Farm Bureau, an organization that represents the state's farmers, had argued in the litigation that state law explicitly does not allow farm workers to organize. The group said they're planning to appeal the decision to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals.
“We believe that the majority's conclusion is unsupportable and disregards decades of precedent,” said David Fisher, president of the Farm Bureau. “New York Farm Bureau fully intends to appeal the court's ill-conceived ruling.”
The lawsuit was originally brought against the state of New York three years ago by former farm worker Crispin Hernandez, the Workers' Center of Central New York and the Worker Justice Center of New York. They were represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union, which cheered the decision Thursday.
“The court's ruling today was unequivocal that denying farmworkers basic labor rights is flat-out unconstitutional, and farmworkers, like other workers, have the right to organize,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of NYCLU. “The workers on whom we depend for the food on our tables have the right to be treated humanely and with dignity, like any other hardworking New Yorker.”
The litigation took a twist when the attorney general's office decided not to defend the constitutionality of the law and instead joined the plaintiffs in arguing that it should be struck down.
The New York Farm Bureau, which represents farmers across the state, then moved to intervene in the litigation as an affected party. The lawsuit essentially then was between the organization and the plaintiffs, who by then had teamed up with the state.
The Farm Bureau was represented by Brian Butler, a member at Bond, Schoeneck & King in Syracuse.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit, called the decision Thursday “a victory” for farmworkers. He supports the legislation that would codify the option for farmworkers to organize into state law.
“This is a victory for some of the most vulnerable members of New York's workforce,” Cuomo said. “From the beginning, we chose not to defend against this lawsuit because farmworkers never should have been denied the same basic rights as other workers and we believed this to not only be morally wrong, but also unconstitutional.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James also applauded the decision Thursday in a joint press release with Cuomo.
“This ruling asserts that farmworkers are no longer considered second-class workers in the eyes of the law. My office will always fight for the hardworking people in this state, and their fundamental rights to organize, access workplace protections, and receive fair wages for a fair day's work.”
The appellate court's ruling was actually a reversal from a decision by the trial court, which had granted a motion by the Farm Bureau to throw out the litigation. Both the plaintiffs and the state had appealed that decision.
Justice Christine Clark wrote in the Appellate Division, Third Department's decision Thursday that they disagreed with the trial court's interpretation of the law, and therefore declared it unconstitutional.
“When the term 'employees' is given its natural and ordinary meaning, we think it clear that the constitutional right to organize and collectively bargain extends to individuals employed as farm laborers,” Clark wrote.
The Court of Appeals is not required to hear an appeal on the case and could reject the Farm Bureau's attempt to have it reviewed by the high court. If the state Legislature doesn't change the law this year, the Court of Appeals would make the final call on the statute's constitutionality.
The Farm Bureau warned against the Legislature changing the law, saying it would harm the economy. The appellate ruling Thursday essentially does what the bill in question would do, but the decision could ultimately be reversed by the Court of Appeals.
“If the legislature, and now the courts do not recognize the value of preserving a viable and economically sustainable food production system in the state, New York agriculture will continue to shrink under a mountain of mandates,” Fisher said. “Our rural economy and local job opportunities will suffer.”
The Legislature is scheduled to conclude this year's legislative session and leave Albany for the year June 19.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
4 minute readDistressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250