Showing posts with label Civil Suit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Suit. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Guestworker Teachers Defrauded in International Labor Trafficking Scheme

From CNN:



From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

SPLC Fights for Guestworker Teachers Defrauded in International Labor Trafficking Scheme

Hundreds of Filipino guestworkers lured to teach in Louisiana public schools were cheated out of tens of thousands of dollars and forced into exploitative contracts by an international trafficking ring run by labor contractors, according to a class action lawsuit filed today by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and Covington & Burling LLP.

The federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of more than 350 Filipino teachers working in Louisiana under the federal H-1B guestworker program. It accuses officials of two labor contractors – Universal Placement International, based in Los Angeles, and its sister organization, Manila-based PARS International Placement Agency – of human trafficking, racketeering and fraud. The suit also names the East Baton Rouge Public School System, several school district officials and a California lawyer, Robert Silverman, based on their roles in the fraudulent trafficking scheme.

"The outrageous conduct by the companies that recruited these teachers and those who assisted them in carrying out their scheme is part of a larger pattern of exploitation that we've documented in guestworker programs," said SPLC Legal Director Mary Bauer, author of the 2007 report Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United States. "It's clear that the very structure of the program lends itself to pervasive worker abuse. Guestworker programs should not be the model for immigration reform."

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the home state of Universal. Included as defendants are Lourdes "Lulu" Navarro, owner and president of Universal; Hothello "Jack" Navarro, a director at Universal; and Emilio V. Villarba, a representative of PARS. In 2000, Lourdes Navarro was convicted of defrauding California's MediCal program of more than $1 million and served a year in Orange County Jail. Villarba, Navarro's brother, was also charged in the scheme but was never apprehended and is now in the Philippines. In 2003, Lourdes Navarro also pleaded guilty in New Jersey to money laundering.

Public schools across America are increasingly turning to the H-1B guestworker program to fill teaching positions. According to a recent report by the AFT, the number of overseas teachers brought to the United States increased by nearly 30 percent between 2002 and 2006, from 14,943 to 19,393. The five states with the most overseas teachers are Texas, New York, California, Maryland and Louisiana, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

"For more than two years, we have been working toward this moment," said Louisiana Federation of Teachers President Steve Monaghan. "The practices described in this lawsuit are disgusting, unacceptable and, frankly, un-American. We are very pleased to have the SPLC and Covington & Burling as partners in the pursuit of justice for these teachers and to put an end to these abuses."

About 200 of the teachers were assigned to the East Baton Rouge school system; others were spread among the Caddo Public School District, Jefferson Parish Public School System and the Recovery School District as well as other school districts in Louisiana. Only the East Baton Rouge district was named as a defendant.

The teachers began arriving in the United States in 2007 after each paid about $16,000, several times the average household income in the Philippines, to obtain the jobs. The H-1B guestworker program, administered by the Department of Labor, permits foreign nationals with special skills to work in the United States for a period of up to six years.

"These teachers have been victimized in ways reminiscent of the worst abuses students learn about in history class: labor contracts signed under duress and arrangements that remind us of indentured servitude," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. "The goal of this lawsuit is to put an end to this exploitation, which should have no place in 21st-century America."

Nearly all the teachers had to borrow money to pay the recruiting fees; the recruiters referred them to private lenders who charged 3 to 5 percent interest per month. Teachers were forced to pay these exorbitant fees because they had already made substantial financial investments that would not be returned and because the recruiters confiscated their passports and visas until they paid. The teachers were also forced to sign away an additional 10 percent of the salaries they would earn during their second year of teaching. Teachers who resisted signing the contracts were threatened with being sent home and losing the thousands they had already paid. The recruiters also charged fees for arranging substandard housing and threatened teachers who complained or sought to move to a new location.

Ingrid Cruz said she and the other teachers were deceived into selling property, resigning from jobs, borrowing money and leaving behind children and friends in search of a more secure future. "We were herded into a path, a slowly constricting path, where the moment you feel the suspicion that something is not right, you're already way past the point of no return," Cruz said. She added that the teachers consider Louisiana their home and have a strong commitment to the state's children.

Under the guestworker program, workers facing exploitation generally must either continue working for the employer that brought them to the United States or return home. Because they often are left deeply in debt from exorbitant recruiting fees, they typically have little choice but to remain on the job.

"These teachers thought they were buying a piece of the American dream but instead were put in a nightmarish financial bind by labor contractors who operated a fraudulent trafficking scheme," said Dennis Auerbach, an attorney with Covington & Burling LLP in Washington, D.C. "They've bravely come forward to correct this injustice and expose the abuses that many other guestworkers are undoubtedly also facing."

In a 2009 report, the AFT called on federal, state and local governments to take more vigorous action to monitor the hiring of migrant teachers by U.S. school districts. Among the steps needed is the adoption and enforcement of ethical standards for international recruitment of teachers, as well as better access to government data needed to track and study international hiring trends.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Civil Litigation on Behalf of Trafficking Survivors

Once a trafficker has been identified and caught, criminal prosecution is one avenue to bring justice. While pursuing a criminal case may be the most obvious way to make a trafficker answer for her or his crime, civil litigation is another option that, depending on the circumstances, might be appropriate in addition to or instead of pursuing a criminal case. A booklet published by the Immigrant Justice Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center "Civil Litigation on Behalf of Victims of Human Trafficking," authored by Daniel Werner and Kathleen Kim, provides an overview of the role of civil litigation in combating trafficking and aiding survivors.

There are many reasons to pursue a civil case on behalf of a trafficking victim. Werner and Kim suggest that "Civil litigation gives power to the powerless and is a critical tool to correct deep and pervasive wrongs" (xvii). In a presentation entitled "
Civil Remedies for Victims of Human Trafficking," Kim suggests that such cases can be empowering for survivors, since they have more control over these cases than criminal cases. While survivors sometimes may receive restitution in criminal cases, Kim also points out that sometimes the damages exceed the amount they are awarded; moreover, civil cases require a lesser burden of proof than criminal cases, meaning that they can be successful even when a criminal case was not. In their booklet, Kim and Werner suggest that "[l]itigation also discourages would-be-traffickers and employers hiring trafficked persons from engaging in these practices" (1).Thus, civil cases can be another source of deterrence, since they are another way to punish traffickers where it hurts the most: in the pocketbook.

Civil cases on behalf of trafficking survivors are certainly not easy. Though they can be empowering for survivors, they can also be painful and difficult.
Werner and Kim point out that such cases require cultural competence and an ability to work closely with the client as an equal and collaborator. These cases can also require a great deal of resources in terms of time, energy, and money (Werner and Kim 1).

Depending on the type of human trafficking, civil cases may face certain limitations. For a variety of reasons, sex trafficking cases have not lead to many civil cases. As Werner and Kim point out, testifying can be traumatic and re-victimizing for survivors of sex trafficking (11). Participating in a civil case, far from being empowering, may be extremely harmful and hinder rehabilitation. Moreover, given that commercial sex work is often "not recognized as legal work"(11), many of the laws used for civil cases on behalf of labor trafficking victims will not apply to victims of sex trafficking; locating defendants can also be difficult. Since criminal sex trafficking cases have been more successful than criminal prosecution in labor cases, pursuing the criminal angle may be more effective.

Civil suit on behalf of domestic workers who are trafficked also poses challenges, albeit for different reasons. Many of the United State's labor laws do not apply to domestic workers (Werner and Kim 10). This lack of protection makes people more vulnerable to exploitation as domestic slaves, and makes it harder to seek restitution on behalf of victims. Moreover, foreign diplomats have been identified as perpetrators in these cases, and they are immune from civil and criminal liability in the United States. As an aside, this problem is certainly not confined to the United States (indeed, according to the 2009 Trafficking in Person's Report,
Belgium and France also face problems with foreign diplomats using domestic slaves).

Civil action can be brought against traffickers under a number of different causes of action. The
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 amended the 2000 TVPA to include a private right of action. As of the 2008 booklet by Werner and Kim, over 20 civil lawsuits have been filed under this law; for cases under the TVPRA, plaintiffs must have been victims of forced labor, sex trafficking, or trafficking into servitude (Werner and Kim 29). Though many states have enacted anti-trafficking legislation, only California has adopted state level private right of action legislation for victims of trafficking (Werner and Kim 38).

Cases can also be brought under other laws that are not specific to trafficking. For example, successful cases have been brought under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Cases brought under this act "must be based on a 'pattern' of 'racketeering activity'" (45); under the TVPRA, human trafficking crimes is considered racketeering activity. Cases can also be brought under various labor laws, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. Claims can be brought under many other acts relating to discrimination and torts. Depending on the situation, defendants may be liable for a variety of damages, including back pay, over-time pay, punitive damages, compensatory damages, treble damages, restitution, and attorney's fees.

In May, the Human Trafficking Project reported on a
successful case on behalf of farm workers in Denver who were victims of trafficking; each of the five workers received $1.5 million in compensation. As noted earlier, many cases are at various stages under the TVPRA. Civil litigation on behalf of survivors of human trafficking can be a powerful tool to empower survivors, provide some payment of damages that can help survivors rebuild their lives, and deter would-be traffickers; nonetheless, such cases are difficult and can be costly, and depending on the type of trafficking may actually be harmful.

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Problems with U.S. Guest Worker Program


From the New York Times:

Suit Points to Guest Worker Program Flaws

By Julia Preston


Immigration authorities worked closely with a marine oil-rig company in Mississippi to discourage protests by temporary guest workers from India over their job conditions, including advising managers to send some workers back to India, according to new testimony in a federal lawsuit against the company, Signal International.

The cooperation between the company and federal immigration agents is recounted in sworn depositions by Signal managers who were involved when tensions in its shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss., erupted into a public clash in March 2007.

Since then, hundreds of the Indian workers have brought a civil rights lawsuit against the company, claiming they were victims of human trafficking and labor abuse. Signal International is fighting the suit and has sued American and Indian recruiters who contracted with the workers in India. The company claims the recruiters misled it — and the workers — about the terms of the work visas that brought them to this country.

The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have opened separate investigations. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined in September that there was “reasonable cause” to believe the Indian guest workers at Signal had faced discrimination and a work environment “laced with ridicule and harassment.”

The Signal case has come to represent some of the flaws and pitfalls, for immigrants and for employers, in the H-2B temporary guest worker program. As Congressional lawmakers weigh moving forward this year on an overhaul of the immigration system, they are debating whether to include an expansion of guest worker programs.

A lawyer for Signal, Erin C. Hangartner, said the company could not comment on the suit.

As it rushed to repair offshore oil rigs after Hurricane Katrina, Signal International hired about 500 skilled metalworkers from India in 2006. Numerous workers have said that they paid as much as $20,000 to Signal’s recruiters, many going into debt or selling their homes. They said recruiters had promised that their visas would soon be converted to green cards, allowing them to remain as permanent residents.

Once the workers realized they would not receive green cards, many complained of fraud and banded together to seek help from American lawyers.

In a deposition in the lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in New Orleans, Signal’s chief operating officer, Ronald Schnoor, said he grew frustrated with Indian workers who were “chronic whiners.” In early 2007 he decided to fire several who were encouraging protests.

Those workers “were making impossible demands” for the company to secure green cards for them or to repay the high fees, Mr. Schnoor said. They were “taking workers away from their work and actually trying to get them to join some effort they were organizing,” he said.

Mr. Schnoor and Darrell Snyder, a manager in the shipyard, where the Indians were living in a labor camp, said they had consulted with agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement for “guidance” on how to fire the workers, following the rules of the H-2B program.

Mr. Schnoor said the “direction” he received from an immigration enforcement agent was this: “Don’t give them any advance notice. Take them all out of the line on the way to work; get their personal belongings; get them in a van, and get their tickets, and get them to the airport, and send them back to India.”

Signal managers said they tried to carry out those instructions on March 9, 2007, putting several Indian workers into vans to take them to the airport. They were prevented from leaving the shipyard by immigrant advocates gathered at the gates.

In an internal e-mail message 10 days later, Mr. Snyder reported that another immigration official had assured him in a meeting that day that the agency would pursue any Indian workers who left their jobs, “if for no other reason than to send a message to the remaining workers that it is not in their best interests to try and ‘push’ the system.”

Carl Falstrom, an immigration lawyer in New Orleans who is not associated with the Signal case, said there were rules for employers who fired guest workers. They are required to provide return airfare to the workers’ home countries, and they are supposed to notify the visa agency, Citizenship and Immigration Services, when workers are no longer employed. But, Mr. Falstrom said, private companies cannot carry out deportations.

Saket Soni, director of the New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice, which represents some workers in the lawsuit, said the managers’ testimony showed that immigration enforcement agents had “advised the corporation on how to retaliate against workers who were organizing.”

An ICE spokesman, Brian Hale, said he could not comment on a continuing investigation. But Mr. Hale said ICE agents were generally aware that a company that fires workers in the H-2B program “is prohibited from compelling individuals to get on the plane.”

This particular story is not new, but this account is only one of many that illustrates that we are dealing with a broken guest worker program. Probably the most extensive account of these issues is outlined in the Southern Poverty Law Center's report "Close to Slavery." 2010 will likely be the year that immigration reform is taken up again, and the anti-trafficking movement will need to pay close attention to the reforms that are proposed. Real comprehensive reform will be extremely important to addressing some of the larger policy issues surrounding human trafficking.

Thursday, December 31, 2009

Human Trafficking: 2009 In Review

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Civil Judgment Successful for Farmworker Victims of Trafficking in Denver


From the Denver Post:

Fields of fear for Colorado illegal farm laborers
For a group of farm laborers working in the U.S. illegally, it wasn't jail or deportation that scared them - it was their "contractor."
By Felisa Cardona and Kevin Vaughan of The Denver Post

They lived in squalor — ratty tile floors, holes in the walls, mold, disgusting bathrooms, unsafe water — and worked jobs that left them bone-weary.

They were migrant farmworkers, Mexicans who slipped into the country illegally and found work in the fields of northern Colorado, and from the outside, their lives looked typical for people living on society's fringes.

But in a fenced-in compound on the edge of the Weld County town of Hudson, the five men lived in fear — not of the authorities, who could kick them out of the United States, but of the man who arranged to smuggle them into America, who gave them a place to live and found them jobs and who signed their paychecks, but who they said carried a gun to keep them in line.

They eventually banded together, filing a federal lawsuit against Moises and Maria Rodriguez, the agricultural contractors who brought them to America and forced them to live as virtual prisoners as they worked off their debts.

A federal judge in Denver recently awarded them $7.8 million in what immigration experts described as the largest judgment of its kind in the country.

That ruling came after the contractors offered no defense to charges that they deducted smuggling fees, rent and cleaning charges from the workers' paychecks and used the threat of violence to make sure the men complied.

Caught up in the suit was one of Colorado's best-known organic farmers. Andy Grant of Grant Family Farms denied that he knew anything about the way the men were being treated, but settled for $10,000 — $2,000 for each worker.

For Grant, the suit was a kick in the gut — an "affront" to a man who grew up playing with the children of Mexican farm workers, who pays above minimum wage, who describes himself as having "an absolute commitment to social justice for workers."

But the implications of the suit go far beyond Grant.
The size of the judgment — more than $1.5 million for each worker - stunned Denver attorney David Simmons, who specializes in immigration issues. He called it "unprecedented."

And Texas immigration attorney Dan Kowalski, who runs Bender's Immigration Bulletin, said he had not seen a case like it.

"I'm sure it's at the top," he said of the judgment. "I haven't heard of anything bigger than that."

Behind a mask of legitimacy

Moises Rodriguez was well known in the farm fields of northern Colorado. He was a "contractor" — a businessman who could supply a crew when a farmer needed to plant a field, or weed it, or harvest it. The farmers paid Rodriguez a lump sum to cover the wages, insurance and taxes for the workers, and he would, in turn, cut it into individual paychecks. His wife, Maria Rodriguez, handled the books. The Rodriguezes provided documents to farmers that purported to show that all their employees were legal workers.

The arrangement is common in farming.

But Rodriguez was much more than just a contractor, according to a sheaf of documents filed as part of the lawsuit and a criminal investigation conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They detail an elaborate system for smuggling workers into the United States.
For those workers, the stories begin in Mexico, where they all heard the same instructions — to find their way to a hotel, to ask for a mysterious man.

For some, it was El Girasol in Agua Prieta, and a man named El Radio. For others, it was room No. 19 at the Hotel San Carlos in the town of Palomas and a man named Gerardo.
A smuggler — a "coyote" — would lead the men out into the desert, where they would walk for days, crossing the border into Arizona.

North of the town of Douglas, the coyote would place a call on a cellphone, and a little later a pickup with a camper shell on the back, or a van, would arrive. Then men would pile in for a ride to a safe house in Phoenix.

The next step of the journey would involve a long, cramped ride in the back of a pickup to Denver. In some cases, Rodriguez himself would do the driving.

From there, the journey would continue to a fenced-in compound on a 9.14-acre tract on Hudson's northeast edge. There sat the two barracks-like apartment buildings — 20 units in all — separated by a small, filthy bathhouse.

Suffering to live in squalor

Moises and Maria Rodriguez lived in town, in an 1,100-square-foot house at 657 Birch St. From the front stoop, they could look to the east, across the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway tracks, and see the compound. Their son, Javier Rodriguez, lived in a mobile home near the old apartment buildings, which had originally been constructed by a pickle company for its field workers.

The men lived two, three or four to an apartment. A videotape of the units, filmed by federal agents executing a search warrant, shows floors with broken and missing tiles, walls with holes in them, splotches of mold and red signs hanging above the sinks, warning that the water wasn't safe to drink.

And the men apparently contributed to the mess — the video shows trash strewn about, dirty dishes and open cans of food on the broken- down counters.

Each day during the growing season, the men piled into an old school bus and rode to a farm field, then put in 12 hours planting, or weeding, or harvesting vegetables.

In the summer of 2004, Grant hired Rodriguez to bring in a crew to work some of his 2,000 acres. Among that crew were the five men.

It was hard work, which they expected. But according to the lawsuit, the reality went far beyond that.

It was a veritable prison, the workers alleged, a place where Rodriguez held them in a form of debt bondage. For example, Rodriguez contended that each man owed him money for smuggling them into the U.S. — he put the price somewhere between $1,100 and $1,300.

He charged them $100 a month for rent, $96 a month for a transportation fee, and money for bathroom cleaning — even though most of the toilets didn't work and the one that did was filthy. He charged them Social Security taxes but didn't turn that money over to the federal government.

Split shoes, swollen feet

Sister Molly Munoz, a nun who also works as an advocate for migrant farmworkers, visited the Hudson compound regularly.

"They were in very poor conditions," Munoz said. "When the high winds came, the apartments would sway. There were no screens on the windows and they had rashes all over their arms."
Munoz held Mass for the men in the front yard of the camp just inside the fence that surrounded the barracks. She brought them toothpaste and they quietly told her about their plight, how they had crossed the border with only a knapsack. She saw their swollen feet and their tennis shoes, split apart after endless hours in the fields.

"It's very tough work," she said.

She also saw something else: Terror among the men.

"They were desperate to talk and they could not talk," she said.

By then, the men had also begun telling their story to Patricia Medige, an attorney for Colorado Legal Services. The nonprofit organization is devoted to providing legal help to the indigent.
In a videotaped interview conducted by Medige in the fall of 2004, one of the men tried to explain the fear he felt. On one hand, he said, Moises Rodriguez did not beat or threaten him. But he described how powerless he felt, given the money Rodriguez demanded, and how scared he felt after hearing his boss had tracked down one man in North Carolina.

"We wanted to leave," the man said in Spanish, "but he said we couldn't leave 'til we paid."

Grocers distant from process

The fruits and vegetables that sit on grocery shelves come from a variety of sources — conventional farms and organic operations like Grant's. Some of the produce is grown in Colorado, some in other parts of the country, some even outside the United States.
Almost all of it, at some point in the process or another, involves manual labor.
For grocers, monitoring the labor conditions of farm workers is a difficult proposition.
"Part of our core values is to care about not just the products we sell but people who help make these products," said Libba Letton, spokeswoman for Whole Foods.

Letton said the company relies on government agencies to monitor labor laws.
"We do as much as we reasonably can do other than growing and harvesting with your very own hands," she said.

King Soopers spokesman Trail Daugherty said if the grocery chain's management learned of unethical practices by a supplier, it would reconsider doing business with the company.
"Since we are a grocery retailer, we depend upon the Department of Labor to keep us current on their findings of human-rights violations," he said.

The government was keeping tabs on Moises Rodriguez.

In 2004, inspectors from the Colorado Department of Labor concluded that Rodriguez's camp in Hudson was not livable, and they denied his application to be a crew leader who provides housing to migrant farmworkers.

"One of the outreach workers with the Adams County Workforce Center inspected the property and found it improper for habitation and told him at that time that the housing was inhabitable and he would not be allowed to be a crew leader providing housing," said Bill Thoennes, spokesman for the Department of Labor. "She said at some point she suspected that he was ignoring that information and was simply bringing in people and housing them anyway."
The state notified the federal Department of Labor, and Rodriguez was denied a permit to be a crew leader. Then his wife, Maria Rodriguez, applied to become a crew leader.
"An inspection was done later and it was found to be inhabitable again," Thoennes said of the property.

U.S. Department of Labor inspectors conducted another investigation and learned that many of the people working for Rodriguez were not in the country legally, and immigration officials were notified.

Medige, the attorney working for the five men, helped convince them to cooperate with federal investigators even though it could mean deportation.

"What is the price tag on your freedom?" Medige asked. "They just decided in the course of the season to take a stand. We kept meeting with them and they would not stand for it. . . . they said, 'We are not going to let this happen to somebody else.' "
A grand-jury indictment

In the fall of 2004, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents began surveillance on the camp.

They documented dozens of men living there in cramped, filthy conditions. But they also saw the men coming and going in their own cars, and talking on telephones.
A grand jury indicted Moises and Maria Rodriguez and their son, Javier Rodriguez, on charges of harboring and transporting illegal immigrants. Federal authorities seized the property and more than $128,000 in cash. When they searched the two mobile homes near the barracks, they found two pistols and ammunition.

In 2006, Moises and Maria Rodri guez each served nearly a year in jail and were then deported to Mexico. Javier Rodriguez — an American citizen — also pleaded guilty in the case and was sentenced to home detention. Family members who answered the door at his apartment in Brighton last week said he did not want to be interviewed for this story.

But while the workers told investigators they were being mistreated and were being held against their will — at least psychologically — federal prosecutors did not pursue charges of involuntary servitude against the Rodriguezes.

The reason was simple: The surveillance tapes showed the workers coming and going, and it would have been difficult to convince a jury that they couldn't have escaped.

"We have a higher burden of proof in the criminal matter than in the civil matter, and we would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt," said Jeffrey Dorschner, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Denver.

For their cooperation, the men were granted temporary visas allowing them to stay in the United States — but they were told they could be deported once the case was concluded.

Town buys compound land

In April 2006, Medige, the legal services lawyer, filed a civil lawsuit against Moises and Maria Rodriguez and against Andy Grant and Grant Family Farms. The suit alleged violations of the Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act by Moises and Maria Rodriguez. They asserted that Grant should have known how the workers were being treated and, therefore, condoned it.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock allowed the men to withhold their identities because they feared retribution. Each was given the name "John Doe" and a Roman numeral.
Grant, who took his farm into bankruptcy reorganization after years of drought and other problems wreaked financial havoc on his operation, reached a settlement, and the suit against him was dismissed.

Judge Babcock ultimately entered a default judgment against Moises and Maria Rodriguez. Then, on April 14, he awarded more than $1.5 million to each of the five men for numerous violations of federal law.

At an auction conducted by the federal government, the town of Hudson bought the land where the compound sat. The winning bid was $37,000.

Barracks, not fear, destroyed

In late April, mud clogged the driveway leading to the barracks and weeds overgrew the camp. Portions of a chain link fence that once surrounded the compound were down or missing.
The apartments looked as if someone left in a hurry: Shirts hung in a closet, an uncooked bag of beans lay on top of a stove, and a television set, its screen smashed, sat on a chair.

Many windows and doors were missing. Signs remained above the kitchen sinks in some units, warning that the water was not safe to drink.

Photographs of some of the migrants' children were left in a half-empty album on the kitchen counter.

Town manager Joe Racine said the town had to demolish the rickety old barracks. Racine said the company hired to clear the land said it would be easier — and cheaper — if the barracks were burned down, and so on May 2, local firefighters torched them.

They — and two ramshackle mobile homes on the property — went up quickly.
Ultimately, the land will be home to Hudson's public works department, and more playing fields in an extension of the city's park.

Of the men who filed the lawsuit, Medige remains protective. Some have returned to Mexico, but others remain in Colorado, working in the fields.

They still fear retribution from Moises Rodriguez, she said, even though he's no longer in the U.S.

Fantastic article covering this case. I say this because it really covers almost every aspect of what happens in a farmworker trafficking case: from the involvement of the recruitment of workers in their home country to the incredible control and power of crew leaders to where the growers and grocers stand (or claim to stand) in this situation. It was a little disappointing that the charges of involuntary servitude or trafficking weren't pursued against the Rodriguezes, but such is the situation with many trafficking cases where the traffickers are given lesser charges due to the difficulty of prosecuting a trafficking case.
Despite the fact that trafficking of farmworkers is one of the most common forms of trafficking in the United States, it is rarely covered by the media and even those involved in the counter-trafficking movement don't understand the problem as well as we should. This does bring a lot of really good news for legal service providers representing trafficking victims across the country, though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is one of, if not the first successful civil suits against traffickers in the U.S. I'm looking forward to hearing about more successful civil suits in the future on behalf of victims.