Authored By : Rob Mohr
According to Public Justice, Benzor Shem Vidal was hired as a nurse by Advanced Care Staffing (ACS) in 2022 on a visa sponsorship to work in a nursing home in New York. He signed a three-year contract with the staffing company, which contained a “stay-or-pay clause, meaning if he left or faced termination before three years, he would owe ACS damages of over $20,000. Once Vidal began working at the nursing home, it became clear that the facility was severely understaffed. ACS claimed he would be responsible for 20-30 patients; however, he typically cared for 40-plus patients. In one instance, Vidal was the sole nurse covering a floor of 80 patients.
The understaffing issue was so severe that Vidal began experiencing headaches and illness. These conditions further diminished his ability to care for his patients and perform his role. Fearing for his health and professional standing, Vidal left his role at the facility rather than risk losing his license due to the poor conditions. Upon his exit, ACS pursued arbitration to claim the damages set out in the contract. This motion also triggered a “loser-pays” clause, whereby Vidal would pay for ACS’s legal fees and the cost of arbitration if he lost against ACS.
Unable to afford the potential costs, Vidal sought a stop on arbitration to bring the matter to court, which the arbitrator refused. Vidal then brought the issue to the federal district court, asking them to review the arbitration clause and grant him respite from the arbitration process. The court saw merit in Vidal’s claim that the working conditions and treatment by ACS violated trafficking laws and paused arbitration.
In response, ACS appealed the decision and called for the court to remove any onerous or illegitimate terms and enforce the remaining contract pieces as written. The appeals court affirmed the arbitration pause. Public Justice filed an amicus curiae brief supporting Vidal and the court’s decision.
The brief builds on the precedent set by another Public Justice case related to arbitration, Morgan v Sundance, which involved wage theft and an overtime manipulation scheme. In that case, the court ruled that the plaintiff, Sundance, waived its right to arbitration by not pursuing it at the first opportunity. This wage theft case and others in Public Justice’s Access to Justice initiative form a rebuttal against the use of arbitration by large corporations as an intimidation tool to avoid litigation from plaintiffs and employees.
In their brief, Public Justice argues that the whole contract collapses in the wake of the offending “loser pays” clause because it is an essential pillar of the broader agreement and not created in good faith towards its foreign employees. These factors nullify the contract and remove grounds for arbitration.
Thanks to Public Justice and their allies for fighting against systemic threats like corporate corruption, environmental polluters, and assaults on civil rights and liberties. If you want to financially support Public Justice and help them continue their important work, click here to visit their website.
