Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Global Horizons Inc et al, No. 2:2011cv03045 - Document 679 (E.D. Wash. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 619 EEOC's MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES) AGAINST GLOBAL HORIZONS INC. D/B/A GLOBAL HORIZONS MANPOWER, INC. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (PL, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Global Horizons Inc et al Doc. 679 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 No.: CV-11-3045-EFS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ORDER GRANTING EEOC’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES) AGAINST GLOBAL HORIZONS INC. D/B/A/ GLOBAL HORIZONS MANPOWER, INC. 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 11 12 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., d/b/a Global Horizons Manpower, Inc.; GREEN ACRE FARMS, INC.; VALLEY FRUIT ORCHARDS, LLC; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants. 13 14 15 The Court previously entered an Order of Default against Global 16 for failure to enter a defense to the claims in the First Amended 17 Complaint (FAC). ECF No. 613. Later, it entered an Order Granting 18 Default Judgment in Part against Global but held it in abeyance pending 19 review of additional filings in support of the claimed compensatory and 20 punitive damages. ECF No. 667. EEOC filed its Supplemental Table in 21 Support of Plaintiff EEOC’s Request for Damages For Default Judgment 22 Against Global, ECF No. 678, as well as a declaration in support of its 23 claims 24 attachments, ECF No. 678-1-45, and its supplemental brief, ECF No. 678- 25 46. In preparing its earlier orders, the Court reviewed the earlier 26 declarations filed in support of EEOC’s request of default judgment for damages on behalf of the claimants with forty-five ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 against Global and for damages and requested the supplementation now 2 filed by EEOC. 3 Because of the entry of default judgment against Global, Global 4 is liable to EEOC on the asserted causes of action in the FAC with only 5 the issue of damages remaining. “The general rule of law is that upon 6 default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating 7 to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. 8 Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) 9 (“An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is 10 admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not 11 denied.”). This general rule is also based on Federal Rule of Civil 12 Procedure 55(b), which governs the entry of default judgment and permits 13 a court to hold a hearing if necessary to determine the amount of 14 damages. Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560. 15 Accordingly, the factual allegations in the FAC establish the 16 liability of Global on the causes of action asserted. On the issue of 17 damages, the Court has reviewed the declarations and supplemental 18 declarations of the claimants filed in support of EEOC’s request for 19 damages. EEOC requests an award of compensatory and punitive damages to 20 each claimant in the amount of $300,000.00, as permitted by statute. 21 In determining damages, the Court understands that burden of proving 22 damages after a default has been entered “is relatively lenient.” Philip 23 Morris USA, Inc. v. Castleworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 498 (C.D. 24 Cal. 25 Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 159 (2d Cir. 1992)). 2003) (citing Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty 26 ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 2 1 Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3), an award of compensatory damages 2 is permitted for “emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental 3 anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses,” as 4 caused by the conduct of Global. A preponderance of evidence must 5 support a finding that compensatory damages were caused by the conduct 6 of Global. 7 In considering an award of punitive damages, the Court generally 8 considers the criteria recognized by the Supreme Court in BMW of North 9 America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), as clarified in State Farm 10 Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 418 (2003): 11 “The most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages 12 award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct.” 13 Gore, 517 U.S. at 575. The factors to be considered in determining 14 reprehensibility are whether: “the harm caused was physical as opposed 15 to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or reckless 16 disregard of the health or safety of others; the target of the conduct 17 had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or 18 was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional 19 malice, 20 Punitive damages “are aimed at deterrence and retribution.” Campbell, 21 538 U.S. at 416. trickery, or deceit, of mere accident.” Id. at 576-577. 22 However, those cases dealt with the application of the Due Process 23 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to state common law punitive damage 24 awards rather than as here an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights 25 Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, acts designed 26 to protect against unlawful employment practices ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 3 on the basis of 1 national origin, race, and retaliation and to provide remedies. See 2 generally Arizona v. Asarco, LLC, 773 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2014) (en 3 banc) (involving a due process challenge to a federal court jury verdict 4 of nominal damages and punitive damages under Title VII, which was then 5 reduced 6 $300,000). by the district court judge to the statutory maximum of 7 The en banc Ninth Circuit Asarco court explained that due process 8 concerns and criteria expressed in both Gore and Campbell are met by 9 § 1981a because, “[T}he statute clearly sets forth the type of conduct, 10 and mind-set, a defendant must have to be found liable for punitive 11 damages. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1) (“A complaining party may recover 12 punitive damages under this section against a respondent . . . if the 13 complaining 14 discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with 15 reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved 16 individual.”). And § 1981a(b)(3) sets statutory caps on the award of 17 compensatory and punitive damages using a formula based on the number 18 of employees. 773 F.3d at 1056-57. party demonstrates that the respondent engaged in a Guided by these principles, the Court now makes its Findings of 19 20 Fact: 21 1. Global intentionally recruited impoverished Thai workers for 22 its labor contracts in the United States believing that they 23 would be more manageable, less likely to complain about seizure 24 of their passports, less work than promised, or delay in wages 25 because they were desperate for the wages to pay off exorbitant 26 ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 4 1 recruitment fees mortgaged by their property and often, the 2 property of their Thai relatives. 3 2. of steady employment. 4 5 3. Global engaged in deception and deceit to obtain H-2A guest worker visas for its contracts in the United States. 6 7 Global falsely promised Thai workers high wages and three years 4. Prawnee Tubchumpol aka Som (“Prawnee”) was Global’s Director of 8 International Relations acting as the liaison among Global, the 9 Thai workers, and the Thai recruiting agents. 10 5. Upon arrival in the United States as part of the Global contract 11 to provide workers in Washington, Thai workers were required to 12 give their passports to the Global supervisors. 13 6. Global hired security guards to enforce its rules and monitor 14 the activities of the Thai workers in Washington during 2004 15 and 2005. 16 7. site field supervisors for the Washington labor contract. 17 18 8. Global employed Charlie Blevins (“Charlie”) as its Operations Manager at various farms in Washington. 19 20 Global employed Sam Wongsesanit (“Sam”) and Sam Prinya as on- 9. Global supervisors Prawnee, Joseph, Monti, Chaiyot, and 21 Charlie, among others, regularly and consistently harassed and 22 intimidated 23 imposition of curfews, prohibition of contact with outsiders, 24 threats of deportation to Thailand if they complained, violated 25 Global rules against communication with outsiders, violated 26 curfew, or tried to escape, and subjected the claimants to head the claimants with confiscation ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 5 of passports, 1 count to confirm that no claimant had left. Threats included 2 arrest and return to Thailand before completion of the contract 3 with 4 recruitment debt often secured by farms and property of the 5 claimants and their families. 6 10. devastating financial results because of the high On one occasion, Global supervisor Charlie yelled at them and 7 displayed a gun during a meeting with Thai workers after a visit 8 by an attorney causing fear among the Thai workers. On another 9 occasion, Mr. Thanakhum recalled that one of the Global 10 supervisors made a motion as if he was shooting the Thai workers 11 in the head. 12 11. Claimants were constantly pressured to work harder and faster 13 always with the threat of return to Thailand without completion 14 of the contract with all of the financial hardship that would 15 cause them and their families. 16 12. Claimants were told not to talk to inspectors or attorneys and 17 never to complain to either about working or living conditions 18 with the same threat of return to Thailand. 19 13. Those same Global supervisors used insulting terms such as 20 lizard and buffalo, both derogatory to Thais, and in particular, 21 insulted those Thai workers from Issa, an agricultural area of 22 northeastern Thailand as if they were lesser people. 23 14. One claimant, Mr. Nuansri, recalled that Chaiyot hit him with 24 a cane while berating him to work faster. When he grabbed the 25 cane causing Chaiyot to fall, he was retaliated against by 26 reassignment to more difficult work alone. ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 6 1 15. than Latino workers at the same work locations. 2 3 The Thai workers were given more difficult work and paid less 16. The claimants heard stories of fellow Thai workers who were 4 sent back to Thailand for consorting with a local Laotian. They 5 also saw that fellow workers who complained were then not given 6 work for a week. Such stories reinforced the threats of Global 7 supervisors to not communicate with outsiders. 8 17. The claimants were subjected to unsafe and overcrowded 9 transportation when it was made available. Frequently, they 10 were denied transportation to stores to buy food and to health 11 care facilities for medical attention to injuries and illnesses. 12 18. Global rented living facilities away from the orchards. These 13 facilities were substandard because they were too small for the 14 number of claimants assigned to them resulting in overcrowding; 15 these living quarters lacked adequate bathrooms and cooking 16 appliances, were unsanitary, and were bug infested, making them 17 virtually uninhabitable. 18 19. Global delayed payment of earned wages to the claimants causing financial hardship to them and their families. 19 20 Frequently 20. Global’s pattern and practice of hostile work environment, 21 harassment, and discrimination as described above caused each 22 of the claimants several or more of these reactions: financial 23 distress, 24 shame, and a variety of physical issues including headaches, 25 depression, loss of weight, sleeplessness, ulcers, and stomach 26 aches and finally, an unrelenting sense of imprisonment. fear, anxiety, anger, intimidation, ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 7 humiliation, 1 21. Given the uniformity of the reprehensible treatment of the 2 claimants 3 emotional distress and compensatory damages in the amount of 4 Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) per month for each month 5 worked for Global in Washington on the contract with the Grower 6 Defendant 7 suffered 8 specific damage in a slightly greater amount—$5,500.00 per 9 month. The Court has compiled a chart of the compensatory damage Global, orchards. greater each In claimant several compensatory was proximately specific damage cases, for a ulcers caused claimant or other awards it found Global’s conduct caused each claimant. 10 11 by 22. Sayan Chuaytua, Bunwan Chaidabot, Meechok Chanphut, Phongsak 12 Kununtha, Manit Lepol, Suwit Mikaeob, Chuangchot Muad Otton, 13 Phichet 14 Bunthang Surivong, Radchawee Suwansing, Mongkhonsak Thanakhun, 15 and Phanuphong Wongworn all were detained by police for almost 16 an 17 constantly threatened them with. As a result, in addition to 18 the emotional distress Global’s other actions described above 19 caused them, they also suffered understandable fear and anxiety 20 as a result due to the possibility they would be sent home to 21 Thailand causing financial hardship for them and their families 22 and shame. This caused each of them an additional compensatory 23 damage 24 ($2,500.00). This additional damage award to each of these 25 claimants is included in the chart of compensatory damage 26 awards. Phanthasri, entire in day. the Suthat This amount is Two Promnonsri, exactly what Thousand ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 8 Narong Global Five Srinongkhot, supervisors Hundred dollars 1 23. Section 1981a(b)(1) provides in pertinent part, “A complaining 2 party may recover punitive damages under this section against 3 a respondent . . . if the complaining party demonstrates that 4 the 5 discriminatory 6 indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved 7 individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1). 8 24. respondent engaged in practices a with discriminatory malice or practice with or reckless This punitive damages provision has been in existence since 9 1991. “Since that time, employers have been on notice regarding 10 the type of conduct that could subject them to liability, the 11 level of mental culpability or intentionality required and the 12 dollar amount to which they could be subjected, if they violated 13 the law.” Arizona v. Asarco, LLC, 773 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 14 2014). 15 25. Global’s conduct as found above was clearly and convincingly 16 both malicious and with reckless indifference to the federally 17 protected rights of each of the claimants herein. Additionally, 18 using the standards articulated in both Gore and State Farm, 19 the 20 indifference to or with disregard of the health and safety of 21 the claimants who were targeted by Global because of their 22 ethnicity and financial vulnerability on a repeated basis over 23 months. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an award of 24 punitive damages as allowed by 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1)&(3). 25 26 26. Court finds that Global’s conduct was with reckless “The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a defendant and to deter similar acts in the future. Punitive damages may not ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 9 1 be awarded to compensate a plaintiff. . . . You may award 2 punitive damages only if you find that the defendant’s conduct 3 that harmed the plaintiff was malicious, oppressive or in 4 reckless 5 malicious if it is accompanied by ill will, or spite, or if it 6 is for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff. Conduct is in 7 reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights if, under the 8 circumstances, 9 plaintiff’s safety or rights, or if the defendant acts in the 10 face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate the 11 plaintiff’s rights under federal law. An act or omission is 12 oppressive if the defendant injures or damages or otherwise 13 violates the rights of the plaintiff with unnecessary harshness 14 or severity, such as by the misuse or abuse of authority or 15 power or by the taking advantage of some weakness or disability 16 or misfortune of the plaintiff.” Ninth Circuit Manual of Model 17 Civ. Jury Instr. No. 5.5 (2016). 18 27. disregard it of the reflects plaintiff’s complete rights. Conduct indifference to is the The Court finds that Global’s treatment of each claimant as 19 found immediately hereinabove justifies an award of punitive 20 damages in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) 21 to each claimant for each month worked for Global in Washington 22 on the contract with the Grower Defendant orchards. As to 23 Detnarong 24 supervisor, the Court awards punitive damages in the amount of 25 Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000.00) for each month worked. 26 Additionally, to each claimant arrested as identified in Finding Nuansri, who was struck by ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 10 a cane by Global 1 of Fact 22, the Court awards an additional Seven Thousand Five 2 Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) in punitive damages. 3 28. The total award of damages both compensatory and punitive is: 4 Seven Million, Six Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand, Five Hundred 5 Dollars (7,658,500.00). 6 follows: That amount is detailed below as 7 Claimant Summary Wichai Charoen Worked for Global for twentyeight months of which nine were at the Grower Defendant Orchards. Total: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Natthakan Chinnawan 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Sayan Chuaytua Punitive Damages Awarded Compensatory Damages Amount awarded $5,500/month $15,000/month $49,500.00 $135,000.00 Total Damages awarded Worked for Global for sixteen months of which five were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: $5,000/month $15,000/month $25,000.00 $75,000.00 Worked for Global for sixteen $5,500/month For physical injuries and $2,500 for one day $15,000/month $7,500 for one day of police detention $184,500.00 ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 11 $100,000.00 1 months of which five were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: 2 3 4 of police detention $30,000.00 $82,500.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $5,000/month Plus $2,500 for one-day of police detention $15,000/month Plus $7,500 for one-day of police detention $37,500.00 $112,500.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $112,500.00 5 6 Jare Chuenjaichon 7 8 9 10 Worked for Global for seven months all at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: $140,000.00 11 Chao Amattat 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Bunwan Chaidabot 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Chaiput Chaipayang Worked at Global for five months all at the Grower Defendant Orchards. Total: Worked for Global for about nineteen months of which seven were at the Grower Defendant Orchards. Total: Worked for Global for ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 12 $100,000.00 $150,000.00 1 twentyseven months of which seven were at the Grower Defendant Orchards. Total: 2 3 4 5 6 7 Chukiat Chamnansarn 8 9 10 11 12 13 Worked for Global for thirteen months of which seven were at the Grower Defendant Orchards. Total: $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $140,000.00 $140,000.00 14 15 Bunchuai Chanaphai 16 17 18 19 Worked for Global for five months all at the Grower Defendant Orchards. Total: $100,000.00 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Cheotehai Chumphang Worked for Global for five months all at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 13 $100,000.00 1 Duangkaew Khongehai 2 3 4 5 6 7 Chit Intip 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Phiphop Khamkaeo 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Banjoed Khangwilai Worked for Global for five months all at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for twenty months, of which six were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global fourteen months of which eight were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for fourteen months of which two were at the Grower $5,000/month $15,000/month $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $30,000.00 $90,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $40,000.00 $120,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 14 $100,000.00 $120,000.00 $160,000.00 1 Defendant orchards. Total: 2 3 Marut Kongpia 4 5 6 7 8 9 Narong Krengchai 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Phiroom Krinsoognoen 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Phongsak Kununtha Worked for Global for five months all at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for twelve months of which six were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for twentytwo months of which four were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for twentyseven $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $30,000.00 $90,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $5,000/month Plus $2,500 for one day of police detention $15,000/month Plus $7,500 for one day of police detention ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 15 $40,000.00 $100,000.00 $120,000.00 $80,000.00 1 months of which nine months were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: 2 3 4 5 $47,500.00 $142,500.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $5,000/month Plus $2,500 for one-day of police detention $15,000/month Plus $7,500 for one-day of police detention $190,000.00 6 7 Chakkaphong Laebua 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Arwuth Lainok 15 16 17 18 19 20 Worked for Global for twentytwo months of which four were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for twentyfour months of which four were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: 21 22 23 24 25 26 Manit Lepol Worked for Global for nineteen months of which nine were at the Grower ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 16 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 1 Defendant orchards. Total: 2 3 Praphan Lomajan 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Pornchai Mangsa 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Phaibun Manisaeng Worked for Global for twentytwo months of which eight were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for twentyseven months of which three were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for twentytwo months of which two were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: $47,500.00 $142,500.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $40,000.00 $120,000.00 $5,500/month because of physical symptoms $15,000/month $16,500.00 $45,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $10,000.00 $30,000.00 ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 17 $190,000.00 $160,000.00 $61,500.00 $40,000.00 1 Nookra Matwiset 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Twaee Metha 9 10 11 12 13 14 Detnarong Nuansri 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Weeraphan Panyasen 22 23 24 25 26 Phichet Phanthasri Worked for Global for fifteen months of which five were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for eight months all at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for four months all at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked at Global for nine months all at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for $5,000/month $15,000/month $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $40,000.00 $120,000.00 $5,500/month Damages more due to having been hit with cane and physical problems $16,000/month Damages more due to having been hit with cane and physical problems $22,000.00 $64,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $45,000.00 $135,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 18 $100,000.00 $160,000.00 $86,000.00 $180,000.00 1 Global for twentysix months of which ten were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: 2 3 4 5 6 Plus $2,500 for one day of police detention Plus $7,500 for one day of police detention $52,500.00 $157,500.00 $210,000.00 Worked 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 $5,000/month $15,000/month $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month 7 8 Bunhom Philuk 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Saiyan Photong 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Saharat Prasertang Worked for Global for twentythree months of which two were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for twentysix months of which seven ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 19 $40,000.00 1 were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: 2 3 $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $5,000/month Plus $2,500 for one day of police detention $15,000/month Plus $7,500 for one day of police detention $42,500.00 $127,500.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $45,000.00 $135,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $140,000.00 4 5 Suthat Promnonsri 6 7 8 9 10 11 Worked for Global for twentyfive months of which eight were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: $170,000.00 12 13 Supap Promson 14 15 16 17 18 Worked for Global for fifteen months of which nine were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Prachon Ratanarak Worked for Global for twentysix months of which seven were at the Grower Defendant orchards. ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 20 $180,000.00 Total: 1 2 Saiam Rodpham 3 4 5 6 7 8 $35,000.00 $105,000.00 Worked for Global for twentyseven months of which two were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: $5,000/month $15,000/month $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $140,000.00 $40,000.00 9 10 Aran Saengvan 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Bunthai Sareewong 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Thanit Sriboran Worked for Global for fourteen months of which three were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for twentynine months of which three were at the Grower Defendant orchard. Total: Worked for Global ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 21 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 1 for twentyseven months of which seven were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: 2 3 4 5 6 $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $5,000/month Plus $2,500 for one day of police detention $15,000/month Plus $7,500 for one day of police detention $47,500.00 $142,500.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $140,000.00 7 8 Narong Srinongkhot 9 10 11 12 13 Worked for Global for twentythree months of which nine were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: $190,000.00 14 15 Jantha Sripakho 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Somphong Suebphang Worked for Global for seven months all at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for twentytwo months for Global of which three were at Grower Defendant orchards. ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 22 $140,000.00 Total: 1 2 Bunthang Surivong 3 4 5 6 7 8 $15,000.00 $45,000.00 Worked for Global for twentynine months of which eight were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: $5,000/month Plus $2,500 for one day of police detention $15,000/month Plus $7,500 for one day of police detention $42,500.00 $127,500.00 $5,000/month Plus $2,500 for one day of police detention $15,000/month Plus $7,500 for one day of police detention $42,500.00 $127,500.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $5,000/month Plus $2,500 for one day of police detention $15,000/month Plus $7,500 for one day of police detention $60,000.00 $170,000.00 9 10 Radchawee Suwansing 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Anan Tawan 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mongkhonsak Thanakhun Worked for Global for fifteen months of which eight were at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked eight months for Global of which three were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for twentysix ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 23 $170,000.00 $60,000.00 1 months of which eight were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: 2 3 4 $42,500.00 $127,500.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $30,000.00 $90,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $170,000.00 5 6 Natthachai Thatkaeo 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Praiwan Thongbai 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Thinnakorn Thongkham 21 22 23 24 25 26 Anurat Truatnok Worked for Global for twentythree months of which three were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for nine months of which five were at Grower Defendant orchards Total: Worked for Global for twelve months of which six were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 24 $60,000.00 $100,000.00 $120,000.00 1 Global for twentysix months of which eight were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: 2 3 4 5 6 $40,000.00 $120,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $5,000/month Plus $2,500 for one day of police detention $15,000/month Plus $7,500 for one day of police detention $160,000.00 7 8 Somesak Wongkaeo 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Athip Wongsanoa 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Phanuphong Wongworn Worked for Global for twentytwo months of which three were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for twelve months of which three were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for twentysix months of which eight at ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 25 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 1 Grower Defendant orchards. Total: 2 $42,500.00 $127,500.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $30,000.00 $90,000.00 $5,000/month Plus $2,500 for one day of police detention $15,000/month Plus $7,500 for one day of police detention $37,500.00 $112,500.00 $5,000/month Plus $2,500 for one day of police detention $15,000/month Plus $7,500 for one day of police detention $37,500.00 $112,500.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $170,000.00 3 4 Pradit Yimsangog 5 6 7 8 9 10 Chuangchot Muad Otton 11 12 13 14 15 16 Worked for Global for sixteen months of which six were at Grower Defendant orchards Total: Worked for Global for twentyseven months of which seven were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: $120,000.00 $150,000.00 17 18 Suwit Mikaeob 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Apichat Peayer Worked for Global for twentyeight months of which seven were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 26 $150,000.00 1 for sixteen months of which seven were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: 2 3 4 5 $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $15,000.00 $45,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $140,000.00 6 7 Samian Hanchat 8 9 10 11 12 Worked for Global for twentytwo months of which four were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: $80,000.00 13 14 Sathaporn Kongkaew 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Suraphon Suwanna Worked for Global for nine months of which three were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for twelve months of which seven were at the Grower Defendant orchards. ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 27 $60,000.00 Total: 1 2 Meechok Chanphut 3 4 5 6 7 8 $35,000.00 $105,000.00 Worked for Global for twentyeight months of which eight were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: $5,000/month Plus $2,500 for one day of police detention $15,000/month Plus $7,500 for one day of police detention $42,500.00 $127,500.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $140,000.00 $170,000.00 9 10 Thanasack Nidkratok 11 12 13 14 15 Worked for Global for twentythree months of which two were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: $40,000.00 16 17 Watcharepong Kaewkasee 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Wichit Srimart Worked for Global for twentysix months of which five were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: Worked for Global for twentytwo ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 28 $100,000.00 1 months of which two were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: 2 3 4 5 Chairat Srinakrung 6 7 8 9 10 Worked for Global for nineteen months of which two were at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $35,000.00 $105,000.00 $5,000/month $15,000/month $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 11 12 Anukorn Srijan 13 14 15 16 Worked for Global for seven months all at the Grower Defendant orchards. Total: $140,000.00 17 18 Laphit Khodthan 19 20 21 22 Worked for Global for five months all at Grower Defendant orchards. Total: 23 24 25 26 /// // / ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 29 $100,000.00 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The EEOC’s Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant 3 Global Horizons, Inc. d/b/a Global Horizons Manpower, Inc., 4 ECF No. 619, is GRANTED. 5 2. The Clerk’s Office is to enter default judgment in the EEOC’s 6 favor against Global Horizons for: Seven Million, Six Hundred 7 Fifty-Eight Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars (7,658,500.00). 8 3. All pending motions and hearings are STRICKEN. 9 4. This file shall be CLOSED. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel. DATED this 26th day of April 2016. 13 14 15 s/Edward F. Shea EDWARD F. SHEA Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Q:\EFS\Civil\2011\3045.findings of fact & damages.docx ORDER GRANTING EEOC’s MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 30
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
