Nwauzor v. The GEO Group, Inc. (9th Cir. 21-36024 8/13/25) Washington’s Minimum Wage Act – Employment Law Weekly

Nwauzor v. The GEO Group, Inc. (9th Cir. 21-36024 8/13/25) Washington’s Minimum Wage Act

The panel denied a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc in a case in which the panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of a class of detainees and Washington State in their consolidated actions against GEO Group, Inc., which operates the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center in Tacoma, Washington, for violations of Washington’s Minimum Wage Act.

Respecting the denial of rehearing en banc, Chief Judge Murguia and Judge W. Fletcher wrote briefly to emphasize three points concerning Judge Bumatay’s dissent from denial of rehearing en banc. First, the majority opinion’s holding does not discriminate against the federal government. The employment of plaintiffs—civil detainees—was part of a private company’s business model. The Washington Minimum Wage Act regulates this type of private business activity uniformly regardless of whether the entity is contracting with the federal or state government. Second, the panel majority disagreed with the new argument in the dissent from denial of rehearing en banc, not made by any party or amicus, that plaintiffs were not “employees” and Washington therefore could not apply its Minimum Wage Act. Third, the dissent’s equation of the federal government and its contractors is contrary to long-settled law.

Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Bumatay, joined by Judges Callahan and VanDyke, wrote that this case should be reheard en banc because, in addition to the reasons cited in Judge Bennett’s dissent, reclassifying detainees as “employees” and applying the minimum wage law would interfere with the performance of a federal operation. The panel majority’s decision sets a dangerous precedent because it allows any State to impair any federal policy—no matter how central to the federal government— so long as the State regulates federal contractors rather than the federal government itself.

Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Collins, joined by Judges R. Nelson and Bress, wrote that, for substantially the reasons set forth in Judge Bennett’s panel dissent, he agreed that the panel majority’s decision contravened controlling Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent applying the doctrines of intergovernmental immunity and federal preemption.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/08/13/21-36024.pdf

There are 0 comments

Share:

More Posts

Bills Signed by Governor (10/7/25)

AB 715 by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Hollywood) — Educational equity: discrimination: antisemitism prevention (signing message) SB 48 by Senator Lena Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles) –

Send Us A Message

Skip to content