Case Background
Migrant farmworkers from Guatemala sued a Michigan-based farm labour company and its owners over claims of exploitation and unfair pay. The workers said the company brought them to the U.S. under the H-2A visa program but then charged them illegal fees, took their passports, and paid them less than promised. The lawsuit started in 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. It grew into a class action, representing dozens of similar workers who harvested crops like asparagus and apples in Newaygo and Oceana counties.
Cause
The workers claimed the company tricked them into paying $2,500 each for jobs, held their documents to keep them from leaving, and forced long hours without full pay. They said this broke federal and state laws against human trafficking and minimum wage rules.
Injury
The Plaintiffs described emotional stress, fear of deportation, and financial losses from unpaid wages and fees. Some workers suffered physical strain from 20-hour days in the fields, but the main harm involved lost income and mental anguish from feeling trapped.
Damages
The jury awarded money for economic losses like unpaid fees and wages, plus noneconomic harm like pain and suffering. Punitive damages punished the company for bad behaviour. Total awards reached hundreds of thousands, split among the named workers.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Luis Gomez-Echeverria | Hervil Gomez-Echeverria | Darwin Joel Fuentes Perez
Artemio Coronado Esteban | Leonel Lopez y Lopez
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Teresa Hendricks | Benjamin O’Hearn |Molly Spaak | Jessica Mugler | Kenya Khalelah Davis | Suleman Masood | Benjamin Solomon-Schwartz
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Kimberly B. Mehlman-Orozco
Defendant(s): Purpose Point Harvesting LLC | Emilto Moreno Gomez (also called Milton), | Lucille Jean Moreno.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Robert Anthony | Kat Dahl | Victor Manuel Jimenez
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the owners ran a "venture" that profited from forced labour, using threats and control over bank accounts to keep workers in line. They pointed to checks and police reports as proof. Defense counsel denied any coercion, saying workers chose to stay and got paid properly. Alvarez remarked that the claims twisted normal business practices into something sinister, urging jurors to see the company as a legitimate employer.
Claims
The lawsuit listed several violations. Under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, workers said the company recruited them with false promises, then used coercion like passport confiscation to force labour. The Michigan Human Trafficking Victims Compensation Act claim echoed this, focusing on state rules against forced work through fraud or threats. Federal Fair Labour Standards Act and Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act claims targeted unpaid minimum wages, including failure to reimburse travel and visa costs. Finally, breach of contract accused the company of breaking H-2A job promises on pay and conditions.
Defense
Defendants denied charging fees or confiscating documents. They said any bank access helped workers, not controlled them, and wages met legal standards. They countered that worker returned year after year voluntarily, showing no real harm. The company filed a counterclaim against two workers for breaching their contracts by leaving early, but the jury rejected it.
Jury Verdict
On June 6, 2025, the jury ruled largely in favor of the plaintiffs after a thorough trial. They found Purpose Point Harvesting LLC and Emilto Moreno Gomez liable for trafficking and forced labour violations against all five named plaintiffs under both federal and Michigan laws. Lucille Moreno was cleared of trafficking charges but held responsible for wage and contract violations for some plaintiffs. The jury awarded compensatory damages for economic losses and emotional harm, along with punitive damages to deter future misconduct. For the wage claims, they found Purpose Point and Emilto failed to pay required minimums, while Lucille was liable only for certain plaintiffs. The breach of contract claim succeeded against Purpose Point and Emilto for all plaintiffs, but against Lucille for only some. The jury rejected the company’s counterclaim, finding no breach by Luis or Hervil. No settlement was reached; the jury’s verdict finalized the case, delivering substantial relief to the workers.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]