|
PALM BEACH POST June 6, 2009
Cane workers see last chance to recover Florida wages A multimillion-dollar legal claim by about 1,500 indigent sugar cane cutters against one of Florida's wealthiest families could hang on the constitutionality of a state statute first passed in 1835. In the case, Achord vs. Osceola Farms Co., the cutters claim they were systematically denied a federally guaranteed hourly wage by the Pahokee-based company. The suit claims that supervisors underreported hours that cutters worked so the firm could meet profit margins for sugar harvests, and that Osceola cheated the employees. Former supervisors have stated in depositions that they were ordered by their bosses to shave hours from the work records. Attorneys for the cutters call the case a David vs. Goliath story because Osceola's owners are the powerful Fanjul brothers, Alfonso and Jose of Palm Beach, who also own Florida Crystals and market Domino Sugar. "This is the Fanjuls getting greedy," said Greg Schell, an attorney representing the cutters before Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach. "That's not true," said attorney Joseph Klock, representing Osceola. Despite the supervisors' statements, Klock said, the workers were paid the $5.30 per hour assured at the time for H-2A workers imported to the U.S. to perform farm labor. In cases where workers' production exceeded what was expected per hour, they were paid an even higher "task rate," he said. "We've won this case in every court we've gone to and we'll win it again," he said. The case harkens to the days when roughly 10,000 Caribbean laborers flooded into South Florida annually, most of them to western Palm Beach County and Hendry County, to wield machetes and harvest the largest sugar crops in the nation. They worked primarily for U.S. Sugar Corp. of Clewiston, the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Belle Glade and various Palm Beach County firms run by the Fanjuls. All of those companies were accused of questionable treatment of workers, and the cane fields became notorious for harsh living conditions. By the mid-1990s, the industry had become mechanized and most of the workers stopped coming. The lawsuit in question, first filed in 1989, originally included more workers and companies. It now deals only with the Osceola employees and covers work done between 1987 and 1993. Schell said Osceola owes the workers an average of $2,000, plus interest, a total that would exceed $9 million if they win. But first, the plaintiffs need to have their case heard. The cutters are almost all from Jamaica, a fact that became a major issue in 2007. "Lawyers for Osceola stumbled on this old statute that says anyone not a resident of Florida who wants to sue in this state must put up a $100 bond to cover potential court costs," Schell said. "These are poor people and can't afford that. The company cheated on their records, and that is the claim the Fanjuls really don't want heard in public, so they resorted to that old statute." Schell said many of his clients make less than $100 a month in Jamaica. He said filing fees are waived in Florida when the person suing is too poor to pay them and the same principle should apply in the Osceola case. Lower courts - Palm Beach County Court and the appellate division of the Circuit Court - upheld the claim by Osceola insisting on the bond money. One Circuit Court judge, Jack Cox, dissented, saying the plaintiffs were being denied their day in court and thus the 1835 statute is unconstitutional. Klock disagreed. "Just because the Fanjuls own a lot of land doesn't mean they shouldn't receive the same protections as other people," he said. Several institutions and individuals have filed amicus briefs supporting the cutters' attempt to have their case heard, including: the Florida Catholic Conference; the Guatemalan consulate; Sandy D'Alemberte, former president of Florida State University and past president of the American Bar Association; and John Mills, former Florida House speaker and former dean of the University of Florida law school. Schell said he expects to hear from the 4th Circuit on the cutters' petition by summer's end.
|