EPA, agency settle migrant complaint
As part of a settlement agreement signed in December, the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry agreed to help people with limited English understand their rights and protections as migrant workers after an unsuccessful attempt by such workers to complain about repeated exposure to pesticides.
A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency investigation started with a complaint from the Southern Migrant Legal Services after the group experienced problems in getting a complaint filed in 2008 on behalf of 14 migrant workers.
One of the key issues was a state Department of Agriculture and Forestry requirement that complaint interviews be done in person.
Based on that complaint, the EPA’s Office of Civil Rights initiated an larger examination into whether the state agency provides “meaningful access” to the Worker Protection Standard for Agriculture Pesticides program.
Although it’s not a statutory or regulatory requirement for an in-person interview to be done, it was the state agency’s discretion to make that a requirement, according to the findings of fact from EPA.
Southern Migrant Legal Services staff members said 13 of the workers, who had been in the United States on temporary visas, had already returned to Mexico but the 14th worker would be available by telephone.
However, the state agency insisted that interviews would have to be done in person and at the Baton Rouge office, according to the EPA findings of fact, which cited a letter sent by Marvin Montgomery, general counsel of the Department of Agriculture and Forestry.
“At least for these guys who went back to Mexico, it wasn’t just difficult, it was impossible,” said Melody Fowler-Green, managing attorney with Southern Migrant Legal Services.
Bobby Simoneaux, director of Pesticide and Environmental Programs with the state Department of Agriculture and Forestry, disagreed, saying, “It was never stated that it had to be in Baton Rouge.”
Simoneaux also said the department takes complaints, even anonymous complaints, over the phone and follows up on them.
However, phone interviews are not admissible in court, Simoneaux said, and that’s something investigators have to keep in mind when doing an investigation interview.
Southern Migrant Legal Services also would not identify the people who were going to file the complaint, Simoneaux said.
Fowler-Green said her organization asked state officials to keep the names secret from the farm where they worked because of fear of reprisals, but the state agency refused.
Simoneaux said the department inspected the farm where the complaint originated based on the complaint the agency received.
However, the EPA findings of fact state that while the farm was inspected, the department did not investigate the specific complaints of the 14 workers.
Simoneaux said that’s not true and that the complaint was followed up.
In addition, the EPA findings of fact state that the state’s Worker Protection Standard for Agriculture Pesticides brochure from the state department is only available in English and the form used to file complaints is also in English only and not available on the department’s website.
Simoneaux said the 14 workers did not want to fill out or sign a form so it did not matter if the department had a form in Spanish.
Simoneaux added that anyone working around or with pesticide application is required to go through training, and the department has Spanish language training material available if it’s requested.
The settlement agreement between EPA and the Department of Agriculture and Forestry states that the department agrees to contract with interpreters for interviews, train employees on the new policy, conduct at least eight outreach sessions statewide about non-English speaking workers and provide the Office of Civil Rights with compliance reports. In addition, the Department of Agriculture and Forestry must have a written policy that allows complaint interviews to be done by telephone as well as in person.