Did Lion Farms Violate Migrant Farmworker Protections? A 2025 Landmark Federal Enforcement Case
/
In 2025, the federal enforcement case against Lion Farms LLC concluded with a consent judgment and permanent injunction. The employer and its owners were ordered to pay $128,899.50 in back wages and civil money penalties for alleged violations affecting migrant and seasonal agricultural workers.
Case: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Case No.: 1:25-cv-00312-KES-EPG (also listed as 1:2025cv00312)
More About the Plaintiff: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC
The U.S. Secretary of Labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, took action through the Department of Labor to address claims that MSPA and its rules were violated. The U.S. Department of Labor investigated a crash involving workers on February 23, 2024, which prompted the action.
Defendants in the Case: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC
The defendants are Lion Farms LLC and its owners and operators: Bruce Lion, Alfred Lion, and Daniel Lion.
A Brief Case History: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC
After a car accident on February 23, 2024, that killed seven employees and seriously hurt another while they were on their way to work, the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division looked into Lion Farms. The Department said the employer did not follow the federal government's rules for transporting migrant and seasonal agricultural workers.
The Secretary of Labor filed the lawsuit on March 14, 2025, in the Eastern District of California. The case was resolved by a Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction entered on August 26, 2025.
What Did the Court Need to Take Into Account?
In this enforcement action, the court had one main question to consider. Did Lion Farms and its owners comply with MSPA regulations? (Particularly the regulations pertaining to safe transportation, accurate wage-statement disclosures, and lawful wage payments).
What Were the Case's Alleged Violations?
The Department of Labor alleged the following MSPA violations:
Unsafe or illegal transportation practices, including use of vehicles and drivers that did not meet MSPA licensing and insurance requirements.
Charging workers a transportation fee that investigators deemed unlawful due to the alleged transportation violations.
Failure to provide required wage statement information, such as workers’ permanent addresses and the employer’s identification number.
Unpaid wages: The agency calculated $39,013 in back wages owed to 12 employees.
The consent judgment also references alleged MSPA violations from October 16, 2022 through February 24, 2024.
What Was the Outcome of the Case?
The August 26, 2025 consent judgment:
Entered judgment totaling $128,899.50, consisting of: $39,013.00 in back wages, and $89,886.50 in civil money penalties.
Imposed a permanent injunction requiring future compliance and prohibiting further MSPA violations.
Why This 2025 Wage-and-Hour Enforcement Case Was Historic
Regarded as a landmark case for 2025, this wage-and-hour enforcement combined back pay/wage relief, significant civil money penalties, and a permanent injunction in a matter involving alleged safety and pay violations affecting vulnerable agricultural workers, despite the fact that MSPA is a farmworker protection statute rather than the FLSA.
FAQ: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC
Q: What is MSPA?
A: MSPA is a federal law setting protections for migrant/seasonal agricultural workers. Protections include requirements regarding disclosures, wage statements, and certain working-condition safeguards (including transportation safety standards).
Q: What monetary relief did the court order in the Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC case?
A: The consent judgment totaled $128,899.50 ($39,013.00 in back wages and $89,886.50 in civil money penalties).
Q: What is a consent judgment?
A: A consent judgment is a court order entered based on the parties’ agreement. It is binding and enforceable even though it resolves the case without a trial.
Q: Did the court’s order include future compliance requirements?
A: Yes. The order included a permanent injunction designed to prevent future violations and require compliance going forward.
If you believe you were denied earned wages, charged improper work-related fees, or not provided required wage information, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help you understand your options. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss potential recovery of unpaid wages and legal accountability.
