United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Global Horizons, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
915 F.3d 631 (2019)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Two fruit growers (the growers) (defendants) contractually outsourced their seasonal-labor needs to Global Horizons, Inc. (defendant), which filled those needs by hiring foreign laborers temporarily living in the United States under H-2A guest-worker visas. Whereas H-2A regulations defined the growers as “employers” with full legal responsibility for their laborers’ work conditions and basic living conditions such as housing and food, the outsourcing contract gave Global Horizons partial control over the laborers’ work conditions and exclusive control over the laborers’ living conditions. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff) sued the growers and Global Horizons for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The EEOC charged the growers and Global Horizons with discriminating against the laborers as to both work conditions and living conditions. The district court entered judgment against Global Horizons on all charges. The court granted the growers’ motion to dismiss those charges against them that related only to the foreign workers’ living conditions. The EEOC appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Watford, 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.