Malee Bureerong v. Tavee Uvawas
United States District Court for the Central District of California
922 F. Supp. 1450 (1996)

- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Beginning in 1988, Malee Bureerong (plaintiff) and other immigrants from Thailand were forced to work in the California garment industry as modern-day slaves. Bureerong and the other immigrants were forced to sew clothing for as many as 18 hours per day for seven years. Bureerong alleged that the immigrants were imprisoned, and that they were required to live and work in the same building. Bureerong’s contact with anyone outside the building was restricted. In addition, Bureerong was subjected to threats of physical violence against family members for noncompliance. Despite working such long hours, Bureerong and the other immigrants either received no wages or received less than the federal minimum wage. The workers were not paid for working overtime. Bureerong’s employer served as a garment contractor providing clothing for Tavee Uvawas (defendant) and for various companies in the garment industry. Uvawas and these other companies negotiated prices that were too low for the garment contractor to abide by the minimum wage and overtime payments required by the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Bureerong and the other immigrants brought suit in federal district court alleging that Uvawas and the companies were joint employers along with the garment contractor.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Collins, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.