## Facts

- Florida agricultural employers hired Mexican migrant workers under the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program for the 1998–1999 seasons.
- To begin work, workers paid pre-employment costs including visa-related fees, border-crossing fees, transportation from Mexico to Florida, and travel from their home villages to the Mexican point of hire (Monterrey).
- Employers reimbursed the Monterrey-to-Florida bus fare only mid-contract, paid return travel from Florida to Monterrey at the end of the season, and did not reimburse visa and border fees or village-to-Monterrey travel.
- Workers alleged that unreimbursed, job-related expenses effectively reduced their first-week wages below the FLSA minimum wage.
- Workers also claimed the written H-2A work contracts required reimbursement of transportation from their home villages, not merely from Monterrey.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the employers on the FLSA and contract claims; workers appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether H-2A workers’ pre-employment expenses (including inbound transportation and visa/border fees) are primarily for the employer’s benefit such that non-reimbursement can unlawfully reduce first-week wages below the FLSA minimum wage.
2. Whether the employers were responsible under the FLSA for recruitment/referral fees charged by third parties, depending on authorization, knowledge, control, or agency.
3. Whether the H-2A contracts required reimbursement of transportation from workers’ home villages to the point of hire, or only from the point of hire to the U.S. job site.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The court held that certain inbound transportation and visa-related costs required to obtain and perform the H-2A job are primarily for the employer’s benefit; if borne by workers, those costs can operate as impermissible “kick-backs” that reduce wages below the minimum wage in the first workweek.
- The court rejected the contract interpretation that would require reimbursement from each worker’s home village and agreed the contract tied the transportation obligation to Monterrey as the point of hire; no breach was shown on that theory.
- On recruitment/referral fees, the court treated potential employer responsibility as fact- and relationship-dependent (e.g., agency/connection to the hiring process), not categorically excluded merely because fees were charged by third parties.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FLSA, minimum wages must be paid “free and clear”; an employer may not shift business expenses to employees when doing so drives pay below the statutory minimum.
- Costs that are an incident of and necessary to employment, and primarily benefit the employer (analogous to “tools of the trade”), are treated as employer expenses for minimum-wage compliance.
- When workers must incur substantial, job-required expenses before starting work, the relevant compliance inquiry focuses on whether those costs reduce net pay below the minimum wage in the first workweek; delayed reimbursement may not cure an initial minimum-wage shortfall.
- Employer liability for recruitment/referral fees turns on the relationship between recruiters and the employer (including authorization, knowledge, control, and agency), and whether the fees are sufficiently connected to the employer’s hiring process.
- Contractual transportation obligations in H-2A agreements are determined by the contract’s designated point of hire; clear language referencing a specific hiring location limits reimbursement duties to travel from that location.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that certain H-2A inbound travel and visa-related expenses are employer-benefit costs that cannot be imposed on workers if doing so reduces first-week pay below the FLSA minimum wage, while affirming that the employers’ contract-based transportation duty ran from the designated point of hire (Monterrey) rather than workers’ home villages.


Arriaga v. Fla. Pac. Farms, L.L.C., 305 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2002)