UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARY JANE WILLIAMS, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 21-1150 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 18, 22, 31 : MARTIN J. WALSH, et al., : : Defendant. : MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, workers in Louisiana’s seasonal crawfish processing industry and a workers’ rights organization, challenge a regulation that requires the Department of Labor (“DOL”) to accept wage data from employers when setting the minimum wage an employer must offer in order to employ temporary foreign workers under the H-2B visa program. According to Plaintiffs, DOL’s acceptance of employer wage data, as opposed to reliance on a federal government measure called the OES survey, depresses wages in the crawfish industry. And they say that the challenged regulation is invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. § 706. They seek vacatur of the regulation, as well as a preliminary injunction ordering DOL and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to notify employers that the regulation is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit. In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek vacatur of past DOL wage determinations based on previous versions of a particular employer-submitted wage survey covering the Louisiana crawfish industry, because the survey allegedly is methodologically and statistically unsound in violation of DOL regulations and a related statute. Plaintiffs have also moved for leave to file a supplemental complaint to add claims related to new wage determinations based on the 2021 version of the Louisiana survey. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims alleged in the original Complaint. Even if the Court were to vacate the challenged regulation, a different statute— which Plaintiffs have not challenged—would still require DOL to accept the employer submissions that allegedly harm Plaintiffs instead of the OES survey. The Court therefore is unable to redress Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, and the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the regulation. As for the challenge to the past wage determinations, these have all expired, and cannot have any effect on Plaintiffs’ wages. This component of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is therefore moot. The Court dismisses the claims in the original Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denies Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction for the same reason. However, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to file a supplemental complaint alleging claims related to current wage determinations and concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims. II. BACKGROUND1 A. Regulatory Framework Under the H-2B visa program, if a United States employer cannot find enough United States workers to perform temporary non-agricultural unskilled work, it may obtain visas for the admission of foreign workers to fill the gap. When Congress authorized this program, it was mindful of the risk that unfettered admission of foreign workers willing to work at lower rates 1 Except where …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals