oregon pumpkin patch, inc. v. water breaks

8/20/2019 Oregon PUMPKIN PATCH, INC. v. Water Breaks

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oregon-pumpkin-patch-inc-v-water-breaks 1/4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26 - COMPLAINTOREGON LAW CENTER

230 NE Second Avenue Suite DHillsboro, OR 97124Tel: (503) 726-4381

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

EVELIO RAMIREZ MORAN,MARIO DELGADO,APOLINARIO MERIDA HERRERA,

Plaintiffs,

vs

PUMPKIN PATCH, INC. DBATHE PUMPKIN PATCH

Defendant.

)))

)))))))))))

))

Case No.

COMPLAINT (Migrant and SeasonalAgricultural Worker Protection Act; ORS654.062)

CLAIM OF $16,500 SUBJECT TOMANDATORY ARBITRATION

Fee Authority: ORS 21.135(1)

Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, allege:

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act 29 U.S.C. § 1832(c)

1.

Defendant employed Evelio Ramirez, Mario Delgado, and Apolinario Merida Herrera as

seasonal agricultural workers as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 1802(10) performing hand-labor

operations in the field.

8/5/2015 3:13:46 PM

15CV20650



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25



2.

Defendant failed to provide adequate water and soap for hand washing in the bathrooms in 2014.

3.

On or about August 18, 2014, plaintiffs attempted to take a water break.

4.

On or about August 18, 2014, defendant’s supervisor, Francisco (Last Name Unknown),

discouraged plaintiffs from drinking water and told plaintiffs to return to work.

5.

The next morning, defendant fired plaintiffs for taking a water break.

6.

The provision of water for drinking and sanitation was a mandatory term of the working

arrangement as mandated by ORS 654.174, OAR 437-004-1110(5) and 29 C.F.R. § 1928.110(c).

7.

Defendant’s failure to provide adequate water for drinking and sanitation violated the terms of

the working arrangement.

8.

The violation of the AWPA and its attendant regulations were the natural consequences of the

deliberate and conscious actions of the defendant, and were therefore intentional within the

meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. '1854(c)(1).

9.

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. '1854(c)(2), plaintiffs attempted in good faith to resolve the issues in

dispute before resorting to litigation.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25



SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Oregon Safe Employment Act (ORS 654.062)

10.

Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are incorporated as if fully stated herein.

11.

Defendant employed plaintiffs to pick squash, cucumber, zucchini and other agricultural

products in 2014.

12.

On or about August 18, 2014, temperatures reached 91 degrees.

13.

Plaintiffs were exercising their right to a healthy and safe workplace by drinking water as

established by ORS 654.010, ORS 654.174 and OAR 437-004-1110(5).

14.

Plaintiffs claim attorney fees pursuant to ORS 654.062(6)(d)

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the court grant them the following

relief:

1. On their First Claim for Relief, a judgment in favor of each Plaintiff and against

Defendant up to $500 each pursuant to 29 USCS § 1854(c)(1) ;



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25



2.

On their Second Claim for Relief, a judgment of compensatory damages in the amount of

$5,000 each pursuant to ORS 654.062(6)(d);

3.

Their

costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to ORS 654.062(6)(d);

4. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;

5. Such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

DATED this _________ day of August, 2015

OREGON LAW CENTER

_____________________________________

Danny Thiemann, OSB 141229230 NE Second Avenue Suite DHillsboro, OR 97124Tel: (503) 726-4381 Fax: (503) [email protected] for PlaintiffsTrial Attorney: Danny Thiemann, OSB 141229

s/

5th

oregon pumpkin patch, inc. v. water breaks

Documents