In a November 13, 2013 opinion in Victor Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the FLSA required a Nevada agricultural employer to reimburse its employees, who were migrant farmworkers under the H-2A visa program, during their first week of work for their inbound travel and immigration expenses, to the extent those expenses decreased their compensation below minimum wage. The Ninth Circuit found that the travel and immigration expenses were covered by the FLSA and its implementing regulations because the expenses primarily benefitted the employer.

Peri & Sons (Peri), a Nevada agricultural employer that produces, harvests and packages onions, hired migrant farmworkers under the H-2A visa program. The farmworkers each incurred immigration and travel expenses in excess of $400 in connection with their employment with Peri.

Twenty-four of the farmworkers sued Peri in February 2011 claiming, among other things, that Peri violated the FLSA because it did not properly reimburse them during their first week of employment for their inbound immigration and travel expenses, even though these expenses were primarily for Peri's benefit. The farmworkers also alleged various claims under Nevada law. The US District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, rejecting the farmworkers' FLSA claims on the ground that 29 C.F.R. Section 531.35 did not treat the relevant expenses as kickbacks. The farmworkers appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court in part, holding that the FLSA required Peri to reimburse the farmworkers for their inbound travel and immigration expenses in the first week of work, to the extent the expenses decreased their compensation below minimum wage. The Ninth Circuit explained that an employer's obligation to reimburse migrant farmworkers admitted to the US under the H-2A visa program for inbound travel and immigration expenses is covered by both regulations implementing the H-2A visa program and the more general regulations implementing the FLSA.

The farmworkers argued that the FLSA regulations required Peri to reimburse them for immigration and travel expenses during the first week of work. In response, Peri argued that:

Evaluating these arguments in light of the DOL's regulatory interpretation, the Ninth Circuit found that Peri generally was subject to the FLSA regulations because:

The Ninth Circuit then concluded specifically that the travel and immigration-related expenses incurred by the farmworkers are covered by the FLSA regulations and had to be reimbursed in the first week of work. The Ninth Circuit explained that:

The Ninth Circuit found that the immigration and travel expenses benefitted both Peri and the employees, and therefore the primary beneficiary of the expenses was ambiguous. In light of this ambiguity, the Ninth Circuit deferred to the DOL's interpretation of the regulations, which it found to be reasonable. Based on that interpretation, the Ninth Circuit held that Peri was the primary beneficiary of the expenses, and that Peri was required to reimburse the employees during their first week of work for the travel and immigration expenses, to the extent the expenses decreased their compensation below minimum wage.

Considering the migrant farmworkers' additional claims under Nevada law, the Ninth Circuit:

Employers hiring migrant farmworkers under an H-2A visa must reimburse the workers for their travel and immigration expenses during their first week of work, to the extent the expenses would decrease their compensation below minimum wage.