## Facts

- Undocumented immigrants worked as overnight janitors in Wal-Mart stores nationwide through cleaning contractors and subcontractors.
- Plaintiffs alleged Wal-Mart and contractors operated an unlawful scheme to recruit and use undocumented labor while paying less than minimum wage and overtime.
- Plaintiffs alleged some workers were “locked in” stores during night shifts and threatened with deportation if they complained or attempted to leave.
- Wal-Mart argued the janitors were not its employees because they were hired by independent contractors and challenged plaintiffs’ ability to pursue certain federal claims.
- Plaintiffs sued as a putative class asserting claims under the FLSA, RICO, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and state common law (including false imprisonment).

## Issues

1. Whether undocumented workers who performed work may recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime under the FLSA.
2. Whether the complaint adequately pled RICO standing and elements, including a distinct enterprise, predicate acts, a pattern of racketeering activity, and injury by reason of the alleged racketeering.
3. Whether undocumented workers alleged membership in a protected class and a class-based discriminatory conspiracy actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
4. Whether the pleaded facts plausibly supported (a) Wal-Mart’s status as a joint employer under the FLSA and (b) a state-law false imprisonment claim based on confinement and threats.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part Wal-Mart’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- The motion to dismiss the FLSA claims was denied; plaintiffs plausibly alleged FLSA coverage and a joint-employer relationship.
- The RICO claims were dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead an enterprise, predicate acts, and a pattern with sufficient factual support.
- The § 1985(3) claim was dismissed for failure to allege a qualifying protected class and the required class-based discriminatory conspiracy.
- The common-law claims, including false imprisonment, survived at the pleading stage.
- Plaintiffs were permitted time to amend the dismissed federal claims.

## Legal Principles

- The FLSA’s broad definition of “employee” covers undocumented workers seeking wages for work already performed; immigration status does not bar recovery of earned minimum wages and overtime.
- Limits on remedies recognized in other labor contexts for work not performed do not foreclose FLSA recovery for completed work.
- Joint-employer status under the FLSA may be plausibly alleged under the economic-realities test when a putative employer is alleged to control schedules, working conditions, supervision, and practical hiring/firing outcomes through contractors.
- Civil RICO claims must plead, with nonconclusory factual content, a distinct enterprise, qualifying predicate acts, a pattern of racketeering activity, and injury proximately caused by the racketeering.
- A § 1985(3) claim requires allegations of a conspiracy driven by class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus and membership in a protected class; undocumented status alone is insufficient.
- False imprisonment generally requires intentional confinement without legal justification and without consent; allegations of being locked inside and deterred from leaving by threats can satisfy pleading requirements.

## Conclusion

The court held that undocumented janitors could pursue FLSA claims for unpaid wages for work already performed and plausibly alleged Wal-Mart’s joint-employer status, while dismissing RICO and § 1985(3) claims for inadequate pleading and allowing state-law false imprisonment and related claims to proceed.


Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 2d 295 (D.N.J. 2005)