[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 89 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


   INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO OVERRRULE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S 
                          ADAMS FRUIT DECISION

                                 ______


                        HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 25, 1995
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation along 
with several of my colleagues, Mr. Fazio, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Andrews, 
Mr. Fawell, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Hoekstra, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Funderburk, 
and Mr. Dooley, which would overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's 1990 
decision in Adams Fruit Co., Inc. versus Barrett. In this decision, the 
Court held that injured farmworkers may bring a private cause of action 
under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act 
[MSPA], even though the workers had already received workers' 
compensation benefits for those same injuries.
  The implications of the Adams Fruit decision are quite troubling as 
the decision undermines the general principle of the exclusivity of 
workers' compensation, both in the MSPA context and beyond. The 
workers' compensation system was designed as a quid pro quo system in 
which employees forego the right to a tort remedy in exchange for 
readily accessible relief without questions of liability or 
contributory negligence. The Adams Fruit decision undercuts the bargain 
that both employers and employees made in participating in the workers' 
compensation system. By allowing a private cause of action under MSPA, 
the decision opens employers up to costly litigation and open-ended 
liability for workplace injuries they thought they were ensuring 
themselves against through their payments into the workers' 
compensation system.
  Farmworkers will also suffer under the Adams Fruit decision as it 
removes any incentive for agricultural employers to provide workers' 
compensation coverage for them. In many States, coverage of farmworkers 
remains optional and the decision provides employers little reason to 
exercise that option. The uncertainty of a private cause of action is 
not a substitute for the accessibility and sure relief of workers' 
compensation.
  When MSPA was passed in 1982, it received bipartisan support from 
agricultural employers, organized labor, and farmworker 
representatives. That coalition would hardly have held together had it 
been intended that MSPA would provide a private cause of action for 
workplace injuries that would supplement any recovery under the 
workers' compensation system.
  The legislation which I am introducing today would effectively 
overturn the Adams Fruit decision and provide that a farmworker could 
not bring a private cause of action under MSPA for actual damages for a 
workplace injury, but would be limited to the remedies available under 
the State workers' compensation scheme. A farmworker would still be 
entitled to bring an action for statutory damages or an injunction 
based on a MSPA violation.
  By reversing the Adams Fruit decision and recognizing the importance 
of the exclusivity of workers' compensation, this legislation returns 
to the original congressional intent in enacting the MSPA remedial 
scheme. This legislation is good for farmworkers and for agricultural 
employers and I urge my colleagues to support it.


                          ____________________