COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT

SUFFOLK, SS

Civil Action No.

ANTHONY WHYTE,
Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT
and
COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

JURY DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Introduction
1.

This is a class action brought by Plaintiff Anthony Whyte, an immigration

detainee who has worked as a laborer in the Suffolk County House of Correction (HOC). The
Plaintiff challenges the Defendants unlawful failure to pay minimum wages, in violation of
M.G.L. c. 151, 1, and failure to pay wages on a weekly or biweekly manner, in violation of
M.G.L. c. 149 148. The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated immigration detainee-laborers who have worked at the Suffolk County House
of Correction (hereinafter detainee-laborers).
2.

During their immigration detention, the Plaintiff and other detainee-laborers

worked one or more of four shifts, performing janitorial services. The Suffolk County Sheriffs

Department (Department) paid, and still pays, detainee-laborers one dollar ($1.00) per day of
work, which is less than the minimum wage. The Suffolk County Sheriffs Department also
failed, and still fails, to pay overtime compensation on weeks that Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated worked over 40 hours in that week. Through the Departments unlawful
practice reducing overhead, the detainees labor usurps the services that government employees
or contractors would otherwise perform.
3.

Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are subject to extensive control by the

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department and correctional officers. The HOC exercises control over
the Plaintiffs working conditions, and each can prevent Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
from working on a temporary or permanent basis. At the same time, the HOC does not take any
responsibility for ensuring that Plaintiff and all others similarly situated earn minimum wage.
Parties
4.

Plaintiff Anthony Whyte is a citizen of Jamaica and a Lawful Permanent Resident

(LPR). He has been detained by the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at
the Suffolk County HOC since approximately September 16, 2013, and was previously detained
at Bristol County House of Correction and Jail from February 28, 2012, through November 18,
2012. Mr. Whyte has worked in the Suffolk County HOC since a few days after his arrival in
September 2013 through the present.
5.

Defendant Suffolk County Sheriffs Department is an employer of members of

the proposed Class. It is an employer of members of the proposed Class because detainees
perform occupational services at the Suffolk County House of Correction under the direction of
the correctional officers. The Suffolk County Sheriffs Department is a state office as a result of
the abolishment of county government in Massachusetts.

6.

Defendant Commonwealth of Massachusetts is an employer of members of the

proposed Class because the Suffolk County Sheriffs Department is a state office, and thereby,
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is by extension an employer of this Class.
Factual Allegations
7.

Immigration detainees are civil detainees held for immigration purposes. They are

in ICE custody for the duration of their immigration removal proceedings, and ICE contracts
with facilities such as the Suffolk County House of Correction to house the detainees. Some of
the detainees, such as Mr. Whyte, have lawful immigration status in the U.S. prior to and during
detention, and were engaged in lawful employment prior to detention.
8.

Any immigration detainee housed in the Suffolk County House of Correction may

sign up for a work detail and receive $1 per day in wages.

9.

The dedicated ICE detention facilities at the Suffolk County House of Correction

are contained in Building 8, which consists of four floors. Unit numbers refer to the floors, e.g.,
Units 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, and 8-4.
10.

Duties of the work details include serving food and drink, cleaning tables,

sweeping, mopping, taking out garbage, laundry for the entire unit, cleaning the staff and
communal bathrooms, cleaning the infirmary, barbering, shoveling snow, and buffing floors.
11.

All detainees are responsible for cleaning their individual cells, but detainee-

laborers are responsible for common areas on their assigned floor/unit such as the recreation/day
room, an adjoining multi-use room, television rooms, computer room, the medical infirmary, and
staff and communal bathrooms.

12.

The floor-buffing crew spans the entire building instead of exclusively covering

the detainee-workers assigned unit. In the winter, correctional officers also ask a detainee to
shovel the snow outside of the dedicated ICE detention building at the Suffolk County HOC.
13.

Occasionally, correctional officers create additional work duties for the detainee-

laborers that facilitate the continued operation of the ICE contract facility.
Control
14.

The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated operate under the control of the

Suffolk County House of Correction. The correctional officers that are on duty during a work
shift oversee the time, place, and manner of the detainees labor.
15.

The Suffolk County Sheriffs Department control the numerous terms and

conditions of the work performed by detainee-laborers, including the following:

(a)

The Department issues and controls the list of detainees who are assigned
work details and the schedules of the details. As a result, the HOC plays
an active and ongoing role in determining whether and when a detaineelaborer can work. The HOC has the power to deny, suspend, or terminate a
detainee-laborers work detail assignment.

(b)

The HOC determines the rate of pay for the detainee-laborers, which is
$1.00 per day, and is responsible for paying them.

(c)

The HOC establishes the number and duration of daily shifts, as well as
staffing needs per shift. The available shifts are (1) 6-7am, (2) 7am2:30pm, (3) 3-10pm, and (4) 11pm-1am. There are six to ten workers per
shift in each unit.

(d)

The HOC directs the standard of performance. Correctional officers

inspect the detainee-laborers work, and if the officer finds the work
unsatisfactory, the detainee-laborer must redo the job until the officer
approves of the result.

Usual Course of Business of Suffolk County Sheriffs Department

16.

The Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, among other operations, operates a

business as an ICE contractor housing immigration detainees. This includes the maintenance and
upkeep of the detention facilities, and the services provided by the immigration detainees are in
the usual course of, and indeed are an essential part of, that business.
Wages
17.

Detainee-laborers receive only $1.00 per day for their work, regardless of the

number of hours worked by a detainee-laborer, which may range from 1 to 8 hours a day.
Detainee-laborers work seven days a week.
18.

During the two to three days prior to a Massachusetts Department of Correction

or ICE inspection, correctional officers require detainee-laborers to do significantly more

cleaning than usual, often doubling the usual amount of cleaning time. Inspections occur about
two to three times a year. Some detainees work over 40 hours a week during inspection weeks.
19.

At the beginning of each month, the HOC deposits each detainee-laborers

monthly earnings for the previous month into their respective inmate accounts. The line-item is
described as DETAIL, indicates the month and year for which the payment is made, and is
usually in the amount of $30 or $31, corresponding with the number of days in that month.
Furthermore, these payments were not immediately available as liquid funds due to
Departments standard delays in issuing checks from detainee-laborers financial accounts.

20.

Pursuant to the state law requirements as set forth in M.G.L. c. 149 150, the

Plaintiffs have filed a complaint with the Office of the Attorney General asserting employee
misclassification as well as insufficient and untimely payments.
Class Allegations
21.

The Defendants have employed hundreds of immigration detainees to perform

labor in and around their units. Many of these detainee-laborers have been deported to other
countries or relocated to their respective residences, many of which are outside Massachusetts.
As a result, joinder of all detainee-laborers is impracticable.
22.

The Defendants treatment of detainee-laborers has been uniform in the following

respects, among others: (a) detainee-laborers have not been paid the minimum wage by the
Defendants, (b) detainee-laborers have not been paid overtime compensation by the Defendants,
and (c) detainee-laborers are paid a lump sum following the end of each months work. As a
result, there are questions of fact and law common to all detainee-laborers.
23.

The claims of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated with respect to these

common issues are typical of the claims of all detainee-laborers with respect to those issues.
24.

The Plaintiff and his counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of

the class and Plaintiffs counsels firm has the resources and experience necessary to do so.
25.

The questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate

over any questions affecting only individual members. The common questions include, among
other things, whether detainee-laborers have been misclassified as nonemployees and whether
detainee-laborers are entitled to minimum wage. Although the amount of each detainee-laborers
damages may vary depending on their individual circumstances, these can be determined by a
simple equation, and the common issues of liability predominate over individualized issues.

26.

A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of these claims. Among other things, individual adjudications would result in a
highly inefficient duplication of discovery, briefing of legal issues, and court proceedings.
Moreover, since the damages suffered by individual members of the class may be relatively
small, the expense and burden of individual litigation makes it practically impossible for the
members of the class individually to redress the wrongs done to them.
27.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of all detainee-laborers who performed

services for the Suffolk County HOC for $1.00 per day.

COUNT I
Misclassification
28.

As set forth above, the Defendants misclassification of detainee-employee as

non-employees violates M.G.L. c. 149 148B. This claim is brought pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149
27C and 150.
COUNT II
Minimum Wage Violations
29.

As set forth above, the Defendants knowing and willful failure to pay, or to

ensure the payment of, minimum wage violates M.G.L. c. 151 1. This claim is brought
pursuant to M.G.L. c. 151 20. The Defendants were required to pay the applicable minimum
wage for each hour of work, and the Plaintiffs are entitled to back pay and statutory damages for
the difference between that wage and the $1-per-day rate they received.
COUNT III
Wage Law Violations
30.

The Defendants knowing and willful failure to pay the Plaintiff and class

members all wages due to them on a weekly or bi-weekly basis within six days of the

termination of the pay period during which the wages were earned, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149
148. This claim is brought pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149 27C and 150.
COUNT IV
Breach of Contract or Quasi-contract
31.

The Defendants entered into an employment contract with Plaintiff and all others

similarly situated. All federal and Commonwealth wage laws were implied terms of that
contract. The wage term and payday in the contract was illegal under state and federal law and is
replaced in quantum meruit, or at the minimum wage including applicable overtime. The
Defendants breached the contract by failing to pay the legal wages when due, and the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated suffered damages because of the late underpayment.
COUNT V
Quantum Meruit or Unjust Enrichment
32.

If the contract fails completely, the Plaintiff and class members have been

deprived by the Defendants of the fair value of their services and are thus entitled to recovery in
quantum meruit pursuant to the common law of Massachusetts. Alternatively, the
Commonwealth has unfairly benefited from the labor of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
and should be disgorged of its ill-gotten gains.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to:

A.

Certify a class, including any appropriate sub-classes, of all similarly-situated

immigrant detainee workers, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 23 and/or M.G. L. c. 149 150.
B.

Issue a declaratory judgment that the Plaintiff and other detainee-laborers are

employees;