Filed: Apr. 26, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 26, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING EEOC'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES) AGAINST GLOBAL HORIZONS INC. D/B/A/GLOBAL HORIZONS MANPOWER, INC. EDWARD F. SHEA , Senior District Judge . The Court previously entered an Order of Default against Global for failure to enter a defense to the claims in the First Amended Complaint (FAC). ECF No. 613. Later, it entered an Order Granting Default Judgment in Part against Global but held it in abeyance pending review of additional filings in su
Summary: ORDER GRANTING EEOC'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES) AGAINST GLOBAL HORIZONS INC. D/B/A/GLOBAL HORIZONS MANPOWER, INC. EDWARD F. SHEA , Senior District Judge . The Court previously entered an Order of Default against Global for failure to enter a defense to the claims in the First Amended Complaint (FAC). ECF No. 613. Later, it entered an Order Granting Default Judgment in Part against Global but held it in abeyance pending review of additional filings in sup..
More
ORDER GRANTING EEOC'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES) AGAINST GLOBAL HORIZONS INC. D/B/A/GLOBAL HORIZONS MANPOWER, INC.
EDWARD F. SHEA, Senior District Judge.
The Court previously entered an Order of Default against Global for failure to enter a defense to the claims in the First Amended Complaint (FAC). ECF No. 613. Later, it entered an Order Granting Default Judgment in Part against Global but held it in abeyance pending review of additional filings in support of the claimed compensatory and punitive damages. ECF No. 667. EEOC filed its Supplemental Table in Support of Plaintiff EEOC's Request for Damages For Default Judgment Against Global, ECF No. 678, as well as a declaration in support of its claims for damages on behalf of the claimants with forty-five attachments, ECF No. 678-1-45, and its supplemental brief, ECF No. 678-46. In preparing its earlier orders, the Court reviewed the earlier declarations filed in support of EEOC's request of default judgment against Global and for damages and requested the supplementation now filed by EEOC.
Because of the entry of default judgment against Global, Global is liable to EEOC on the asserted causes of action in the FAC with only the issue of damages remaining. "The general rule of law is that upon default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true." Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) ("An allegation — other than one relating to the amount of damages — is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied."). This general rule is also based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), which governs the entry of default judgment and permits a court to hold a hearing if necessary to determine the amount of damages. Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560.
Accordingly, the factual allegations in the FAC establish the liability of Global on the causes of action asserted. On the issue of damages, the Court has reviewed the declarations and supplemental declarations of the claimants filed in support of EEOC's request for damages. EEOC requests an award of compensatory and punitive damages to each claimant in the amount of $300,000.00, as permitted by statute. In determining damages, the Court understands that burden of proving damages after a default has been entered "is relatively lenient." Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castleworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 498 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 159 (2d Cir. 1992)).
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3), an award of compensatory damages is permitted for "emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses," as caused by the conduct of Global. A preponderance of evidence must support a finding that compensatory damages were caused by the conduct of Global.
In considering an award of punitive damages, the Court generally considers the criteria recognized by the Supreme Court in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), as clarified in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 418 (2003): "The most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct." Gore, 517 U.S. at 575. The factors to be considered in determining reprehensibility are whether: "the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, of mere accident." Id. at 576-577. Punitive damages "are aimed at deterrence and retribution." Campbell, 538 U.S. at 416.
However, those cases dealt with the application of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to state common law punitive damage awards rather than as here an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, acts designed to protect against unlawful employment practices on the basis of national origin, race, and retaliation and to provide remedies. See generally Arizona v. Asarco, LLC, 773 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (involving a due process challenge to a federal court jury verdict of nominal damages and punitive damages under Title VII, which was then reduced by the district court judge to the statutory maximum of $300,000).
The en banc Ninth Circuit Asarco court explained that due process concerns and criteria expressed in both Gore and Campbell are met by § 1981a because, "[T]he statute clearly sets forth the type of conduct, and mind-set, a defendant must have to be found liable for punitive damages. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1) ("A complaining party may recover punitive damages under this section against a respondent . . . if the complaining party demonstrates that the respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual."). And § 1981a(b)(3) sets statutory caps on the award of compensatory and punitive damages using a formula based on the number of employees. 773 F.3d at 1056-57.
Guided by these principles, the Court now makes its Findings of Fact:
1. Global intentionally recruited impoverished Thai workers for its labor contracts in the United States believing that they would be more manageable, less likely to complain about seizure of their passports, less work than promised, or delay in wages because they were desperate for the wages to pay off exorbitant recruitment fees mortgaged by their property and often, the property of their Thai relatives.
2. Global falsely promised Thai workers high wages and three years of steady employment.
3. Global engaged in deception and deceit to obtain H-2A guest worker visas for its contracts in the United States.
4. Prawnee Tubchumpol aka Som ("Prawnee") was Global's Director of International Relations acting as the liaison among Global, the Thai workers, and the Thai recruiting agents.
5. Upon arrival in the United States as part of the Global contract to provide workers in Washington, Thai workers were required to give their passports to the Global supervisors.
6. Global hired security guards to enforce its rules and monitor the activities of the Thai workers in Washington during 2004 and 2005.
7. Global employed Sam Wongsesanit ("Sam") and Sam Prinya as onsite field supervisors for the Washington labor contract.
8. Global employed Charlie Blevins ("Charlie") as its Operations Manager at various farms in Washington.
9. Global supervisors Prawnee, Joseph, Monti, Chaiyot, and Charlie, among others, regularly and consistently harassed and intimidated the claimants with confiscation of passports, imposition of curfews, prohibition of contact with outsiders, threats of deportation to Thailand if they complained, violated Global rules against communication with outsiders, violated curfew, or tried to escape, and subjected the claimants to head count to confirm that no claimant had left. Threats included arrest and return to Thailand before completion of the contract with devastating financial results because of the high recruitment debt often secured by farms and property of the claimants and their families.
10. On one occasion, Global supervisor Charlie yelled at them and displayed a gun during a meeting with Thai workers after a visit by an attorney causing fear among the Thai workers. On another occasion, Mr. Thanakhum recalled that one of the Global supervisors made a motion as if he was shooting the Thai workers in the head.
11. Claimants were constantly pressured to work harder and faster always with the threat of return to Thailand without completion of the contract with all of the financial hardship that would cause them and their families.
12. Claimants were told not to talk to inspectors or attorneys and never to complain to either about working or living conditions with the same threat of return to Thailand.
13. Those same Global supervisors used insulting terms such as lizard and buffalo, both derogatory to Thais, and in particular, insulted those Thai workers from Issa, an agricultural area of northeastern Thailand as if they were lesser people.
14. One claimant, Mr. Nuansri, recalled that Chaiyot hit him with a cane while berating him to work faster. When he grabbed the cane causing Chaiyot to fall, he was retaliated against by reassignment to more difficult work alone.
15. The Thai workers were given more difficult work and paid less than Latino workers at the same work locations.
16. The claimants heard stories of fellow Thai workers who were sent back to Thailand for consorting with a local Laotian. They also saw that fellow workers who complained were then not given work for a week. Such stories reinforced the threats of Global supervisors to not communicate with outsiders.
17. The claimants were subjected to unsafe and overcrowded transportation when it was made available. Frequently, they were denied transportation to stores to buy food and to health care facilities for medical attention to injuries and illnesses.
18. Global rented living facilities away from the orchards. These facilities were substandard because they were too small for the number of claimants assigned to them resulting in overcrowding; these living quarters lacked adequate bathrooms and cooking appliances, were unsanitary, and were bug infested, making them virtually uninhabitable.
19. Frequently Global delayed payment of earned wages to the claimants causing financial hardship to them and their families.
20. Global's pattern and practice of hostile work environment, harassment, and discrimination as described above caused each of the claimants several or more of these reactions: financial distress, fear, anxiety, anger, intimidation, humiliation, shame, and a variety of physical issues including headaches, depression, loss of weight, sleeplessness, ulcers, and stomach aches and finally, an unrelenting sense of imprisonment.
21. Given the uniformity of the reprehensible treatment of the claimants by Global, each claimant was proximately caused emotional distress and compensatory damages in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) per month for each month worked for Global in Washington on the contract with the Grower Defendant orchards. In several specific cases, a claimant suffered greater compensatory damage for ulcers or other specific damage in a slightly greater amount — $5,500.00 per month. The Court has compiled a chart of the compensatory damage awards it found Global's conduct caused each claimant.
22. Sayan Chuaytua, Bunwan Chaidabot, Meechok Chanphut, Phongsak Kununtha, Manit Lepol, Suwit Mikaeob, Chuangchot Muad Otton, Phichet Phanthasri, Suthat Promnonsri, Narong Srinongkhot, Bunthang Surivong, Radchawee Suwansing, Mongkhonsak Thanakhun, and Phanuphong Wongworn all were detained by police for almost an entire day. This is exactly what Global supervisors constantly threatened them with. As a result, in addition to the emotional distress Global's other actions described above caused them, they also suffered understandable fear and anxiety as a result due to the possibility they would be sent home to Thailand causing financial hardship for them and their families and shame. This caused each of them an additional compensatory damage in the amount Two Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($2,500.00). This additional damage award to each of these claimants is included in the chart of compensatory damage awards.
23. Section 1981a(b)(1) provides in pertinent part, "A complaining party may recover punitive damages under this section against a respondent . . . if the complaining party demonstrates that the respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual." 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1).
24. This punitive damages provision has been in existence since 1991. "Since that time, employers have been on notice regarding the type of conduct that could subject them to liability, the level of mental culpability or intentionality required and the dollar amount to which they could be subjected, if they violated the law." Arizona v. Asarco, LLC, 773 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2014).
25. Global's conduct as found above was clearly and convincingly both malicious and with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of each of the claimants herein. Additionally, using the standards articulated in both Gore and State Farm, the Court finds that Global's conduct was with reckless indifference to or with disregard of the health and safety of the claimants who were targeted by Global because of their ethnicity and financial vulnerability on a repeated basis over months. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an award of punitive damages as allowed by 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1)&(3).
26. "The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a defendant and to deter similar acts in the future. Punitive damages may not be awarded to compensate a plaintiff. . . . You may award punitive damages only if you find that the defendant's conduct that harmed the plaintiff was malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights. Conduct is malicious if it is accompanied by ill will, or spite, or if it is for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff. Conduct is in reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights if, under the circumstances, it reflects complete indifference to the plaintiff's safety or rights, or if the defendant acts in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate the plaintiff's rights under federal law. An act or omission is oppressive if the defendant injures or damages or otherwise violates the rights of the plaintiff with unnecessary harshness or severity, such as by the misuse or abuse of authority or power or by the taking advantage of some weakness or disability or misfortune of the plaintiff." Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Civ. Jury Instr. No. 5.5 (2016).
27. The Court finds that Global's treatment of each claimant as found immediately hereinabove justifies an award of punitive damages in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) to each claimant for each month worked for Global in Washington on the contract with the Grower Defendant orchards. As to Detnarong Nuansri, who was struck by a cane by Global supervisor, the Court awards punitive damages in the amount of Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000.00) for each month worked. Additionally, to each claimant arrested as identified in Finding of Fact 22, the Court awards an additional Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) in punitive damages.
28. The total award of damages both compensatory and punitive is: Seven Million, Six Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars (7,658,500.00). That amount is detailed below as follows:
Claimant Summary Compensatory Punitive Total
Damages Damages Damages
Amount Awarded awarded
awarded
Wichai Worked $5,500/month $15,000/month
Charoen for
Global
for
twenty-eight
months of
which
nine were
at the
Grower
Defendant
Orchards.
Total: $49,500.00 $135,000.00 $184,500.00
Natthakan Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Chinnawan for
Global
for
sixteen
months of
which
five were
at the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $100,000.00
Sayan Worked $5,500/month $15,000/month
Chuaytua for For physical $7,500 for
Global injuries one day of
for and $2,500 police
sixteen for one day detention
months of of police
which detention
five were
at the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $30,000.00 $82,500.00 $112,500.00
Jare Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Chuenjaichon for
Global
for seven
months
all at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $140,000.00
Chao Amattat Worked at $5,000/month $15,000/month
Global
for five
months
Ball at
the
Grower
Defendant
Orchards.
Total: $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $100,000.00
Bunwan Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Chaidabot for Plus $2,500 Plus $7,500
Global for one-day for one-day
for about of police of police
nineteen detention detention
months of
which
seven
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
Orchards.
Total: $37,500.00 $112,500.00 $150,000.00
Chaiput Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Chaipayang for
Global
for
twenty-seven
months of
which
seven
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
Orchards.
Total: $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $140,000.00
Chukiat Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Chamnansarn for
Global
for
thirteen
months of
which
seven
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
Orchards.
Total: $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $140,000.00
Bunchuai Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Chanaphai for
Global
for five
months
all at
the
Grower
Defendant
Orchards.
Total: $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $100,000.00
Cheotehai Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Chumphang for
Global
for five
months
all at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $100,000.00
Duangkaew Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Khongehai for
Global
for five
months
all at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $100,000.00
Chit Intip Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
for
Global
for
twenty-months,
of which
six were
at the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $30,000.00 $90,000.00 $120,000.00
Phiphop Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Khamkaeo for
Global
fourteen
months of
which
eight
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $40,000.00 $120,000.00 $160,000.00
Banjoed Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Khangwilai for
Global
for
fourteen
months of
which two
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00
Marut Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Kongpia for
Global
for five
months
all at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $100,000.00
Narong Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Krengchai for
Global
for
twelve
months of
which six
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $30,000.00 $90,000.00 $120,000.00
Phiroom Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Krinsoognoen for
Global
for
twenty-two
months of
which
four were
at the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $80,000.00
Phongsak Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Kununtha for Plus $2,500 Plus $7,500
Global for one day for one day
for of police of police
twenty-seven detention detention
months of
which
nine
months
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $47,500.00 $142,500.00 $190,000.00
Chakkaphong Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Laebua for
Global
for
twenty-two
months of
which
four were
at the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $80,000.00
Arwuth Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Lainok for
Global
for
twenty-four
months of
which
four were
at the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $80,000.00
Manit Lepol Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
for Plus $2,500 Plus $7,500
Global for one-day for one-day
for of police of police
nineteen detention detention
months of
which
nine were
at the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $47,500.00 $142,500.00 $190,000.00
Praphan Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Lomajan for
Global
for
twenty-two
months of
which
eight
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $40,000.00 $120,000.00 $160,000.00
Pornchai Worked $5,500/month $15,000/month
Mangsa for because of
Global physical
for symptoms
twenty-seven
months of
which
three
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $16,500.00 $45,000.00 $61,500.00
Phaibun Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Manisaeng for
Global
for
twenty-two
months of
which two
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00
Nookra Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Matwiset for
Global
for
fifteen
months of
which
five were
at the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $100,000.00
Twaee Metha Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
for
Global
for eight
months
all at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $40,000.00 $120,000.00 $160,000.00
Detnarong Worked $5,500/month $16,000/month
Nuansri for Damages more Damages more
Global due to due to
for four having been having been
months hit with hit with
all at cane and cane and
the physical physical
Grower problems problems
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $22,000.00 $64,000.00 $86,000.00
Prichet Worked at $5,000/month $15,000/month
Panyasen Global
for nine
months
all at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $45,000.00 $135,000.00 $180,000.00
Phichet Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Phanthasri for
Global Plus $2,500 Plus $7,500
for for one day for one day
twenty-six of police of police
months of detention detention
which ten
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $52,500.00 $157,500.00 $210,000.00
Bunhom Worked
Philuk for
Global
for
fifteen
months of
which six
days were
at the
Grower
Defendant
orchard.
Total: $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00
Saiyan Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Photong for
Global
for
twenty-three
months of
which two
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00
Saharat Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Prasertang for
Global
for
twenty-six
months of
which
seven
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $140,000.00
Suthat Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Promnonsri for Plus $2,500 Plus $7,500
Global for one day for one day
for of police of police
twenty-five detention detention
months of
which
eight
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $42,500.00 $127,500.00 $170,000.00
Supap Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Promson for
Global
for
fifteen
months of
which
nine were
at the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $45,000.00 $135,000.00 $180,000.00
Prachon Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Ratanarak for
Global
for
twenty-six
months of
which
seven
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $140,000.00
Saiam Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Rodpham for
Global
for
twenty-seven
months of
which two
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00
Aran Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Saengvan for
Global
for
fourteen
months of
which
three
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $60,000.00
Bunthai Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Sareewong for
Global
for
twenty-nine
months of
which
three
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchard.
Total: $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $60,000.00
Thanit Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Sriboran for
Global
for
twenty-seven
months of
which
seven
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $140,000.00
Narong Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Srinongkhot for Plus $2,500 Plus $7,500
Global for one day for one day
for of police of police
twenty-three detention detention
months of
which
nine were
at Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $47,500.00 $142,500.00 $190,000.00
Jantha Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Sripakho for
Global
for seven
months
all at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $140,000.00
Somphong Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Suebphang for
twenty-two
months
for
Global of
which
three
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $60,000.00
Bunthang Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Surivong for Plus $2,500 Plus $7,500
Global for one day for one day
for of police of police
twenty-nine detention detention
months of
which
eight
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $42,500.00 $127,500.00 $170,000.00
Radchawee Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Suwansing for Plus $2,500 Plus $7,500
Global for one day for one day
for of police of police
fifteen detention detention
months of
which
eight
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $42,500.00 $127,500.00 $170,000.00
Anan Tawan Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
eight
months
for
Global of
which
three
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $60,000.00
Mongkhonsak Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Thanakhun for Plus $2,500 Plus $7,500
Global for one day for one day
for of police of police
twenty-six detention detention
months of
which
eight
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $42,500.00 $127,500.00 $170,000.00
Natthachai Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Thatkaeo for
Global
for
twenty-three
months of
which
three
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $60,000.00
Praiwan Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Thongbai for
Global
for nine
months of
which
five were
at Grower
Defendant
orchards
Total: $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $100,000.00
Thinnakorn Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Thongkham for
Global
for
twelve
months of
which six
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $30,000.00 $90,000.00 $120,000.00
Anurat Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Truatnok for
Global
for
twenty-six
months of
which
eight
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $40,000.00 $120,000.00 $160,000.00
Somesak Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Wongkaeo for
Global
for
twenty-two
months of
which
three
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $60,000.00
Athip Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Wongsanoa for
Global
for
twelve
months of
which
three
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $60,000.00
Phanuphong Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Wongworn for Plus $2,500 Plus $7,500
Global for one day for one day
for of police of police
twenty-six detention detention
months of
which
eight at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $42,500.00 $127,500.00 $170,000.00
Pradit Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Yimsangog for
Global
for
sixteen
months of
which six
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards
Total: $30,000.00 $90,000.00 $120,000.00
Chuangchot Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Muad Otton for Plus $2,500 Plus $7,500
Global for one day for one day
for of police of police
twenty-seven detention detention
months of
which
seven
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $37,500.00 $112,500.00 $150,000.00
Suwit Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Mikaeob for Plus $2,500 Plus $7,500
Global for one day for one day
for of police of police
twenty-eight detention detention
months of
which
seven
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $37,500.00 $112,500.00 $150,000.00
Apichat Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Peayer for
Global
for
sixteen
months of
which
seven
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $140,000.00
Samian Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Hanchat for
Global
for
twenty-two
months of
which
four were
at Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $80,000.00
Sathaporn Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Kongkaew for
Global
for nine
months of
which
three
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $60,000.00
Suraphon Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Suwanna for
Global
for
twelve
months of
which
seven
were at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $140,000.00
Meechok Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Chanphut for Plus $2,500 Plus $7,500
Global for one day for one day
for of police of police
twenty-eight detention detention
months of
which
eight
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $42,500.00 $127,500.00 $170,000.00
Thanasack Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Nidkratok for
Global
for
twenty-three
months of
which two
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00
Watcharepong Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Kaewkasee for
Global
for
twenty-six
months of
which
five were
at Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $100,000.00
Wichit Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Srimart for
Global
for
twenty-two
months of
which two
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00
Chairat Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Srinakrung for
Global
for
nineteen
months of
which two
were at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00
Anukorn Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Srijan for
Global
for seven
months
all at
the
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $140,000.00
BLaphit Worked $5,000/month $15,000/month
Khodthan for
Global
for five
months
all at
Grower
Defendant
orchards.
Total: $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $100,000.00
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The EEOC's Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Global Horizons, Inc. d/b/a Global Horizons Manpower, Inc., ECF No. 619, is GRANTED.
2. The Clerk's Office is to enter default judgment in the EEOC's favor against Global Horizons for: Seven Million, Six Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars (7,658,500.00).
3. All pending motions and hearings are STRICKEN.
4. This file shall be CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk's Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel.
