The Trafficking Victims Protection Act and Liquidated Damages Provisions in Employment Agreements

Tuesday, November 08 2022 14:52 Written by  Patricia Collins

Reprinted with permission from the October 14th edition of The Legal Intelligencer. (c) 2022 ALM Media Properties. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.

Employers eager to recapture the costs of hiring foreign citizens often use damages or repayment provisions in employment agreements. A recent case in the Southern District of New York illustrates a challenge to that strategy. The Southern District’s recent decision in Baldia v. RN Express Staffing Registry LLC to allow a complaint under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”) to proceed, is part of a growing trend in using the TVPA to challenge such agreements.

The plaintiff in the Baldia case, Marie Alexandrine Baldia, is a citizen of the Philippines. RN Express Staffing recruited her from the Philippines and hired her as a registered nurse supervisor after sponsoring her visa to work in the United States. Baldia signed an Employment Agreement for a three-year term, that included a liquidated damages provision. Specifically, the Employment Agreement required that in the event Baldia left the employ of RN Express Staffing, “without cause”, before the end of the three-year term, she would need to repay the costs of “recruiting, training and placement”. The Employment Agreement recited that the “Company Recruitment Costs” totaled $33,320, and that the number would be reduced after her first full year of employment.

 

This particular provision is not an uncommon tool where employees take on the costs of sponsoring immigrant employees or providing specialized training. The TVPA challenge requires employment lawyers to rethink this strategy. It is worth pausing to note here that such liquidated damages might have been questionable from the start, for two reasons: first, such provisions are disfavored under Pennsylvania law; and second, the purpose of this type of provisions is probably not to recoup the costs, but rather to deter the employee from leaving. Under Pennsylvania law, a court will only enforce this type of liquidated damages provision where actual damages in the event of a breach are difficult to ascertain. Pantuso Motors Inc. v. Corestates Bank, N.A., 798 A.2d 1277, 1282 (Pa. 2002). Further, a court will not enforce a liquidated damages provision if it amounts to a penalty. Id. A penalty is a provision for fixed damages in the event of a breach that is intended as punishment, “the threat of which is designed to prevent the breach.” .

When Baldia complained that RN Express Staffing had not properly paid her, her supervisors, named as a defendants in the lawsuit, met with her to advise her that they would enforce the liquidated damages provision if she did not complete her three year term. In a particularly troubling set of allegations, Baldia states that her supervisors reminded her of this liability and then told her to “refrain” from complaining further about her wages. Baldia pleaded that she was threatened with legal action and psychological, financial, and reputational harm if she did not continue to work for RN Express Staffing.

RN Express Staffing moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the threat alleged by Baldia was not the kind of threat the TVPA was intended to address. The Court disagreed, joining a growing a number of courts that have permitted this use of the TVPA to continue, some as class actions. See, e.g., Magtoles v. United Staffing Registry, Inc., 2021 WL 6197063 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2021)

The Southern District focused its analysis on 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (“Section 1589”), citing the intent of that provision “to broaden the punishable conduct under the TVPA beyond what constitutes involuntary servitude”. Section 1589 prohibits knowingly providing or obtaining labor or services by means of harm beyond violent or physical harms, including by means of abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process; or by any scheme plan or pattern that would cause the person to believe that, if they did not provide the work, they could suffer serious harm.

The Southern District found that the threat to sue Baldia to obtain the liquidated damages should she not serve her full three-year term stated a claim for violation of the TVPA where the employer actually threatened to enforce the provision. RN Express Staffing argued that the threat was a “permissible warning”, but the court found that Baldia had adequately pleaded that the liquidated damages provision was unenforceable under New York law. The court noted, that the provision really amounted to a form of compulsion of an immigrant employee to remain in the job to avoid the liquidated damage provision. Further, the court noted that RN Express Staffing’s damages were “easily ascertainable” as they had previously employed more than 100 Filipino nurses.

Notably, the court also found that Baldia stated a claim for abuse of the immigration sponsorship process by misrepresenting her rate of pay, and by luring her to leave the Philippines to work for a particular rate of pay, and then changing the rate of pay. They then used the threat of liquidated damages to dissuade her from complaining about it.

Finally, the Southern District noted that Plaintiff had adequately pleaded the level of intent required under Section 1589. Section 1589 requires that the defendant “knowingly” provide or obtain labor through wrongful means. The court found that Baldia pleaded sufficient facts so support a claim that RN Express Staffing and her supervisors knowingly threatened her and that they intended her to believe that she would suffer serious harm if she left their employ. The court noted that the individual defendants, her supervisors, controlled Baldia’s work schedule and supervised her work, and that this role supported Baldia’s evidence of intent. In other words, the court allowed the case to proceed as to intent because all defendants intended the “legally dubious” liquidated damages provision to force Baldia to stay at RN Express Staffing.

The Southern District’s decision in the Baldia case adds a level of risk to liquidated damages provisions in these types of employment agreements. Before Baldia and similar cases, these types of provisions were questionable, especially in the immigration context, but the risk was that a court would not enforce the liquidated damages provision. Baldia arguably makes such provisions actionable as a violation of the TVPA, and includes potential liability for individuals who recruit such employees and supervise their employment. While such provisions never served as an effective retention tool, Baldia and similar cases highlight the importance of actual human- resource-based retention strategies as the best way to retain valuable employees.

Patricia Collins is a Partner and Employment Law Chair with Antheil Maslow & MacMinn, LLP, based in Doylestown, PA. Her practice focuses primarily on employment, commercial litigation and health care law. Patricia Collins can be contacted at 215.230.7500 ext. 126.

 

Last modified on Tuesday, November 08 2022 15:11
Patricia Collins

Patricia Collins

Patty has been practicing law since 1996 in the areas of Employment Law, Health Care and Litigation, with extensive experience in advising employers and health care providers as well as complex litigation in federal and state courts. Patty’s knowledge of employment law includes the Employee Retirement Income Security Act; federal and state employment discrimination laws, and employment contracts and wage claims.

To view Patricia Collins' full profile, click here.

Leave a comment

Blogger Bios

  • Alan Wandalowski Alan Wandalowski
    Alan concentrates his practice in Estate Planning, Estate Administration, Elder Law, Estate…
  • Bill MacMinn Bill MacMinn
    Bill concentrates his practice in the area of litigation, including Commercial Litigation,…
  • Christopher D. Wagner Christopher D. Wagner
    Christopher Wagner is an experienced and results-driven business law attorney with a comprehensive understanding…
  • Elaine T. Yandrisevits Elaine T. Yandrisevits
    As an estate planning attorney, Elaine Yandrisevits is committed to guiding individuals…
  • Elizabeth J. Fineman Elizabeth J. Fineman
    Elizabeth Fineman concentrates her practice on domestic relations matters and handles a…
  • Erik Taskin Erik Taskin
    Erik Taskin focuses his practice on business and corporate law, serving as…
  • Gabriel Montemuro Gabriel Montemuro
    Gabe’s practice focuses on litigation, including commercial litigation, personal injury, estate and…
  • Jennifer Dickerson Jennifer Dickerson
    Jennifer Dickerson is committed to a career focused on helping individuals and…
  • Jessica A. Pritchard Jessica A. Pritchard
    Jessica A. Pritchard, focuses her practice exclusively in the area of family…
  • Joanne Murray Joanne Murray
    Joanne concentrates her practice in the areas of Business Law, Business Transactions,…
  • Lisa A. Bothwell Lisa A. Bothwell
    Lisa Bothwell counsels corporate/business clients on the formation, operation, acquisition, and sale…
  • Lynelle Gleason Lynelle Gleason
    Lynelle A. Gleason has spent her legal career in Bucks County, representing…
  • Megan Weiler Megan Weiler
    Megan Weiler is a skilled advocate dedicated to guiding clients and their…
  • Melanie J. Wender Melanie J. Wender
    Melanie J. Wender is a dedicated and supportive advocate for individuals and families…
  • Michael Klimpl Michael Klimpl
    Michael’s practice areas include Real Estate, Municipal Law, Zoning and Land Use, Employment…
  • Michael W. Mills Michael W. Mills
    Mike is devoted to helping businesses build value and improve working capital,…
  • Patricia Collins Patricia Collins
    Patty has been practicing law since 1996 in the areas of Employment…
  • Peter J. Smith Peter J. Smith
    Pete is a business lawyer and trusted partner to his corporate clients…
  • Stephanie M. Shortall Stephanie M. Shortall
    Throughout her career, Stephanie has developed a practice focused on advising closely…
  • Susan Maslow Susan Maslow
    Sue concentrates her practice primarily in general corporate transactional work and finance…
  • Thomas P. Donnelly Thomas P. Donnelly
    Tom’s practice focuses on commercial litigation and transactions. In litigation, Tom represents…