Big CA farm loses disability rights case, faces trial over damages
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Federal judge ruled Grimmway Farms violated disability rights via unpaid leave.
- Judge: CA can pursue group-wide damages without class certification under ADA rules.
- Trial will determine monetary penalties and systemic relief for impacted workers.
A federal judge in Sacramento ruled Monday that Grimmway Farms, the world’s largest carrot grower, engaged in systemic disability discrimination against hundreds of its employees by forcing them onto unpaid leave instead of providing accommodations that would have allowed them to keep working.
The California Civil Rights Department, which sued the Kern County grower in 2021, hailed the summary judgment as a major victory that will allow the state to seek monetary damages for affected farmworkers and injunctive relief to ensure future workers are protected.
“The court has ruled loud and clear that forcing injured workers into unpaid leave is disability discrimination,” said Kevin Kish, director of California’s Civil Rights Department. “Here in California, farmworkers have rights, they are protected, and we will not shy away from fighting on their behalf.”
In his decision, U.S. District Judge Dale A. Drozd concluded that Grimmway had displayed a “pattern or practice” of violating disability rights laws by sidelining employees with injuries or illnesses, often without even considering alternatives such as assistive technology, modified job duties, or reassignment.
Bakersfield-based Grimmway in a statement said this ruling was one of many pre-trial decisions that Drozd has made and that others had gone in the company’s favor.
“The allegations do not reflect the principles or values that guide our company, and we will respectfully see the matter through trial and the proper legal process,” the company said. “Because this remains ongoing litigation, we will not be offering further comment at this time.”
A systemic practice of unpaid leave
Court records show that, when Grimmway employees reported permanent work restrictions that could not be accommodated, the company referred them to a “interactive process section.” This frequently resulted in workers being placed on leave, court records show: At least 96% of employees referred to that section between 2016 and 2024 were put on unpaid leave.
In some cases, employees had already been successfully working under light-duty assignments but were pulled off the job once their cases were transferred, according to court records, and experts testified that Grimmway failed to consider widely available, low-cost assistive technologies and instead relied almost exclusively on unpaid leave or reassignment.
For affected farmworkers, the unpaid leave policy effectively stripped them of wages they could have earned, leaving many without income or forcing them to choose between returning without accommodations or losing their jobs altogether.
Not a class action but still group relief
The court also addressed a key procedural issue: whether the Civil Rights Department could bring the case on behalf of all affected workers without certifying a class. Grimmway had argued the lawsuit could not proceed without formal class certification under federal rules.
But the judge ruled that, like the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, state civil rights agencies can sue in a “representative capacity” on behalf of a group of workers without certifying a class.
That authority comes from the Americans with Disabilities Act’s incorporation of Title VII enforcement powers, which allow government agencies to act in the public interest.
The case is now expected to move toward a trial where the court will decide how much Grimmway could pay in damages and what additional relief farmworkers may receive. The court also made clear that the Civil Rights Department can pursue remedies for the entire affected group of workers, not just individuals.
Grimmway has not yet announced whether it will appeal Monday’s decision. The company, which employs thousands in California’s Central Valley, has faced scrutiny over its labor practices in the past but has maintained that it complies with employment laws.
