Know Your Rights: New Labor Department Rules for the H-2A Program

Last Update: 2025-03-26

In April 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) finalized a regulation called the Farmworker Protection Rule. This rule was meant to address longstanding abuses within the H-2A program and give all farm workers crucial protections. Unfortunately, because of opposition from agricultural employers, the entirety of the rule is not in effect and only portions of it will benefit workers.

Here is what you need to know about this rule:

How did this rule happen?

This rule was made possible by farm workers and supporters of farm workers who spoke out for workers’ rights. The UFW Foundation and United Farm Workers led a campaign in support of the farmworker protection rule, including a public comment that quoted from the testimonies of approximately 100 farm workers. Their testimonies spoke about the retaliation and pretextual firings they experienced because they advocated for better conditions, the prohibitions their employers placed on speaking with key services providers, the widespread and multiple forms of wage theft, illegal recruitment fees, and trafficking that they survived. Their experiences speak to why the farmworker protection rule is so drastically needed.

What has happened since this rule went into effect?

Agricultural employers have attempted to prevent the worker protections in this rule by filing several lawsuits. Some of these lawsuits have resulted in temporary decisions that prevent DOL from implementing certain parts of the rule. Those decisions have also blocked DOL from implementing the rule in certain states. Check below to see if your state is one of those states.

What is in this rule?

In the states where this rule is effective, it furthers farm workers’ ability to self-advocate, speak out for better wages and working conditions, file a complaint, and assert their rights. The rule does so by prohibiting employer retaliation against workers who are involved in these protected activities. Consulting with “key service providers” (including legal services providers like the UFW Foundation) is also a protected activity and employers are prohibited from retaliating against workers for doing so.

Unfortunately, because of the lawsuits against the rule, certain parts of the rule are not being implemented, including those that: allow farm workers to invite guests to where they live and leave a “captive audience” meeting without fear of retaliation; require seat belts in most employer vehicles; and address human trafficking, wage theft, illegal recruitment fees, and abusive agents of employers like supervisors and farm labor contractors.

The UFW Foundation has defended the Farmworker Protection rule by filing amicus (friend of the court) briefs and seeking to intervene in the court cases. We’ll keep advocating so that the basic protections in this rule are not limited and are all enjoyed by all farm workers. Please check back with us for updates.

Disclaimers:
Because of one ruling in a federal court case in Georgia (Kansas v. DOL), the Farmworker Protection rule is blocked from being implemented in 17 states. Those 17 states are: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
Because of another ruling in a separate federal court case in Kentucky (Barton v. DOL), certain parts of the rule cannot be implemented in four additional states: Kentucky, Ohio, Alabama, and West Virginia. Certain parts of the rule cannot be implemented against these private plaintiffs and their members: USA Farmers, North Carolina Growers Association, Agricultural Workforce Management Association, The Worker and Farmer Labor Association, and National Council of Agricultural Employers. The parts of the rule that cannot be implemented include: anti-retaliation for filing a complaint or participating in any investigation or proceeding, protections for concerted activity, captive-audience meeting provisions, designation of representative at disciplinary meetings, right to guests at employee housing, requirement that workers wear seatbelts, employer information collection requirements, and method-of-pay requirements.
Due to a separate federal court ruling in Mississippi (International Fresh Produce Association v. DOL), certain parts of the rule are blocked from being implemented nationwide, particularly a provision that protects against retaliation by employers against workers for forming, joining, or assisting a union; other concerted activities for purposes of mutual aid or improving wages or working conditions; or declining to join a "captive audience" meeting. The ruling also blocks a part of the rule that allows an H-2A worker or U.S. worker who works for an H-2A employer to have a designated representative during any investigatory interview that might result in disciplinary action from the employer.