4 more join suit accusing RNV of labor violations

The original seven contract workers formerly employed by RJCL Corp.’s RNV Construction have amended their complaint against their employer to include four other plaintiffs; all of whom are accusing the company of violating labor laws.

Last Thursday, the seven former RNV contract workers accusing their employer of violating labor laws filed their first amended complaint with the U.S. District Court for the NMI to include four more former RNV employees similarly situated and to include human trafficking and retaliation claims.

The now 11 plaintiffs are Prospero A. Armia, Nemencio Q. De Leon, Giovan Malazarte, Ian R. Alcoseba, Ranie E. Celestial, Rudy B. Naraja, Victor P. Fraginal, Reymar T. Pineda, Jerry Tortor, Jerry Valles, and Edmar Yangyang.

They are represented by attorneys Aaron Halegua and Colin Thompson.

The amended complaint names RJCL Corp. dba RNV Construction, Homesmart Corp. dba Best Deal General Merchandise, Paragon Construction dba Coreplus Construction, Wandervilla Corp. dba Villa Royal Pawnshop, Ruel R. Villacrusis, Michelle Rueda, Jane Rueda, and Sherwin Resurrection as defendants.

The plaintiffs are a group of Filipino workers who came to the CNMI to work for RNV defendants based on promises of fair compensation, free housing and medical care, and humane working conditions.

According to the amended complaint, they essentially were not provided these things.

“When plaintiffs arrived on Saipan, RNV defendants did not fulfill the promises made in the contracts executed in the Philippines; indeed, plaintiffs were told that these were just a formality to get their CW visa,” said the complaint.

In a statement from RNV’s lawyer Michael Dotts, he said because only 11 of hundreds of RNV employees have come forward, this limited response raises significant questions about the credibility of the claims being made.

“This case was originally filed in September last year by seven former employees. The attorneys representing these plaintiffs were granted a year to amend their complaint and add more individuals to their case if they could. However, after a full year, only four additional employees have joined the lawsuit. Given that RNV employs well over 100 individuals this limited response raises significant questions about the credibility of the claims being made by the plaintiffs. It suggests that the assertions made in the lawsuit do not reflect the reality of the situation. And in fact, as will be shown at trial, what is alleged in the complaint is not true,” he said.

In addition, Dotts alleges that RNV has evidence that some members of the group of plaintiffs approached other RNV employees with promises of $100,000 and a green card if they joined the lawsuit.

“This revelation paints the lawsuit as not merely a legal grievance but rather as a strategic maneuver aimed at obtaining legal status to remain on Saipan, along with a financial windfall. The lawsuit seems rooted in a desire for personal gain rather than any legitimate concern over rights violations,” he said.

Dotts adds that the human trafficking and retaliation claims are allegedly baseless and lack merit.

“Notably, the human trafficking and retaliation claims were not part of the original complaint filed a year ago, which suggests that they may have been added opportunistically rather than based on any substantive evidence. RNV contends that these claims are baseless and lack merit. Some of the individuals involved in the lawsuit have been on Saipan for many years, and despite having numerous opportunities to report any instances of human trafficking or retaliation if they were real to the appropriate authorities, they failed to do so. Instead, the majority consistently renewed their CW-1 work visas, which indicates that they were willing to continue their employment and that their rights were not being violated,” he said.

“This raises an important question: Why would these employees choose to file what RNV characterizes as a baseless lawsuit? All of the plaintiffs except two were subject to the touchback provision when they first filed and did not exit. Their pursuit of this lawsuit is less about justice and more about finding a pathway to extend their stay in the Commonwealth, work here, and get money from RNV that they do not deserve,” Dotts alleges.

In closing, Dotts states that RNV plans to mount a full defense against the allegations and intends to take the case all the way to a jury trial.

“RNV believes that a jury will see through the claims and recognize the underlying motivations of the plaintiffs. Ultimately, RNV’s stance is that the lawsuit is not about workplace injustice but rather a calculated attempt by a small group of former employees to leverage the legal system for personal benefit,” said Dotts.

Amended complaint

According to the amended complaint filed last week, the plaintiffs’ lawyers claim that despite receiving at least $88 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency contracts, RNV defendants provided neither free housing, free food, nor free medical care.

In addition, the lawyers allege that RNV defendants failed to pay plaintiffs for all their hours, pay them the prevailing wage, or pay the proper overtime rates.

“RNV defendants took numerous deductions from plaintiffs’ paychecks without their consent, including for housing and for ‘other’ unspecified items, in violation of federal and local laws and regulations. Moreover, the housing provided by RNV defendants was unsanitary and inadequate: up to seven workers shared a single room; there was no hot water; dogs, cats, and rats entered the barracks and defecated on the floor; and cockroaches infested the kitchen cabinets,” said the complaint.

In addition, the complaint states that RNV defendants engaged in a pattern of intimidation and coercion to compel the plaintiffs to continue working under these conditions.

“Whenever plaintiffs inquired about the illegal deductions, Jane Rueda threatened to not renew their visas and to send plaintiffs back to Philippines at their own cost. Villacrusis intimidated plaintiffs by telling them that complaining to the Labor authorities would be futile. RNV defendants even instructed two plaintiffs to lie to immigration authorities about the conditions of their employment, and then terminated them for telling the truth to these authorities,” said the complaint.

After these terminations, the complaint states that several plaintiffs filed a complaint with the CNMI Department of Labor and then later brought this lawsuit to complain about RNV defendants’ labor practices.

In response, RNV defendants allegedly engaged in a retaliation campaign against plaintiffs, including by threatening to deport them, offering a $2,000 bounty for information on the whereabouts of one plaintiff, blacklisting plaintiffs from further employment on Saipan, and intimidating them by conducting surveillance of them and coming to their residences.

“The retaliation by RNV defendants has caused plaintiffs severe emotional distress and left some plaintiffs afraid to leave their homes. The retaliation and threats by RNV defendants also caused several former employees who were interested in joining the lawsuit to change their mind,” said the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that RNV defendants’ conduct violates various federal laws, Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, federal regulations governing the CW-1 program, as well as CNMI laws and regulations.

Based on these claims, the lawsuit states that the plaintiffs are suing the RNV defendants for forced labor pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, termination in violation of public policy, retaliation in violation of the FLSA, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiffs are also bringing claims for retaliation in violation of the FLSA and intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant Sherwin Resurrection, an employee of RNV defendants who allegedly participated in the surveillance of and retaliation against plaintiffs.