ELEVEN contract workers have filed forced labor and other complaints against RNV Construction and its affiliates in federal court.
RNV Construction has denied the allegations.
Attorneys Colin Thompson and Aaron Halegua represent the following plaintiffs: Prospero Armia, Nemencio De Leon, Giovan Malazarte, Ian Alcoseba, Ranie Celestial, Rudy Naraja, Victor Fraginal, Reymar Pineda, Jerry Tortor, Jerry Valles and Edmar Yangyang.
In a statement, Halegua said: “We are honored to represent these brave clients as they seek to hold their former employer accountable despite the alleged intimidation and retaliation against them. We hope that this will encourage other foreign workers in the CNMI who have suffered labor abuses to come forward and enforce their rights.”
The companies named in the lawsuit are RJCL Corporation dba RNV Construction, Homestart Corporation dba Best Deal General Merchandise, Paragon Construction dba Coreplus Construction, and Wandervilla Corporation dba Villaroyal Pawnshop.
The lawsuit demanded a jury trial and specifically named RNV Construction’s principal and employees as defendants. They are Ruel Villacrusis, Michelle Rueda, Jane Rueda, and Sherwin Resurrection.
In a 47-page amended complaint filed recently in federal court, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for forced labor pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, termination in violation of public policy, retaliation in violation of the FLSA, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
A specific allegation of retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress was also filed against Sherwin Resurrection for allegedly conducting surveillance and retaliation against the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit requests the District Court for the NMI to issue a declaratory judgment stating that the actions of the defendants violate federal and CNMI laws.
The lawsuit also requests the court to award the plaintiffs an amount of damages to be determined at trial.
The plaintiffs are seeking an injunctive relief “enjoining RNV Defendants and Defendant Resurrection from engaging in any further discrimination or retaliation against Plaintiffs.”
In addition, they are requesting reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and other relief the court may deem just and proper.
The complaint
According to the complaint, Ruel Villacrusis, along with his relatives Jane Rueda and Michelle Rueda, operates a variety of companies in the CNMI engaged in the construction business and other ventures.
The plaintiffs are a group of Filipino workers who came to the CNMI to work for RNV based on promises of fair compensation, free housing and medical care, and humane working conditions.
“When Plaintiffs arrived in Saipan, however, RNV defendants did not fulfill the promises made in the contracts executed in the Philippines; indeed, plaintiffs were told that these were just a formality to get their CW visa. Despite receiving at least $88 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency contracts, RNV Defendants provided neither free housing, free food, nor free medical care,” the lawsuit stated.
The complaint further alleged that RNV failed to compensate the plaintiffs for all their hours, pay them the prevailing wage, or provide proper overtime rates.
RNV “took numerous deductions from Plaintiffs’ paychecks without their consent, including for housing and for ‘other” unspecified items, in violation of federal and local laws and regulations,” the lawsuit alleged.
Moreover, “the housing provided by RNV Defendants was unsanitary and inadequate: up to seven workers shared a single room; there was no hot water; dogs, cats, and rats entered the barracks and defecated on the floor; and cockroaches infested the kitchen cabinets,” the lawsuit added.
“RNV Defendants engaged in a pattern of intimidation and coercion to compel Plaintiffs to continue working under these conditions. Whenever Plaintiffs inquired about the illegal deductions, Jane Rueda threatened to not renew their visas and to send Plaintiffs back to the Philippines at their own cost,” the lawsuit stated.
“Villacrusis intimidated Plaintiffs by telling them that complaining to the labor authorities would be futile. RNV defendants even instructed two Plaintiffs to lie to immigration authorities about the conditions of their employment, and then terminated them for telling the truth to these authorities,” the lawsuit stated.
“After these terminations, several plaintiffs filed a complaint with the CNMI Department of Labor and then later brought this lawsuit to complain about RNV Defendants’ labor practices,” the lawsuit added.
“In response, RNV Defendants engaged in a retaliation campaign against plaintiffs, including by threatening to deport them, offering a $2,000 bounty for information on the whereabouts of one Plaintiff, blacklisting Plaintiffs from further employment in Saipan, and intimidating them by conducting surveillance of them and coming to their residences,” the lawsuit stated.
“The retaliation by RNV Defendants has caused plaintiffs severe emotional distress and left some Plaintiffs afraid to leave their homes. The retaliation and threats by RNV defendants also caused several former employees who were interested in joining the lawsuit to change their mind,” the lawsuit added.
The initial lawsuit against RNV construction and its affiliates alleged failure to pay overtime in violation of FLSA and did not include Reymar Pineda, Jerry Tortor, Jerry Valles and Edmar Yangyang as plaintiffs.
Credibility questioned
RNV Construction’s attorney, Michael Dotts, issued the following statement:
“This case was originally filed in September last year by seven former employees. The attorneys representing these plaintiffs were granted a year to amend their complaint and add more individuals to their case if they could. However, after a full year, only four additional employees have joined the lawsuit.
“Given that RNV employs well over 100 individuals, this limited response raises significant questions about the credibility of the claims being made by the plaintiffs.
“It suggests that the assertions made in the lawsuit do not reflect the reality of the situation. And in fact, as will be shown at trial, what is alleged in the complaint is not true.”
Dotts said RNV has “evidence that some members of this group of plaintiffs approached other RNV employees with promises of $100,000 and a Green Card if they joined the lawsuit.
“This revelation paints the lawsuit as not merely a legal grievance but rather as a strategic maneuver aimed at obtaining legal status to remain in Saipan, along with a financial windfall,” Dotts added.
“The lawsuit seems rooted in a desire for personal gain rather than any legitimate concern over rights violations. Notably, the Human Trafficking and Retaliation claims were not part of the original complaint filed a year ago, which suggests that they may have been added opportunistically rather than based on any substantive evidence. RNV contends that these claims are baseless and lack merit. Some of the individuals involved in the lawsuit have been in Saipan for many years, and despite having numerous opportunities to report any instances of Human Trafficking or Retaliation if they were real to the appropriate authorities, they failed to do so. Instead, the majority consistently renewed their CW-1 work visas, which indicates that they were willing to continue their employment and that their rights were not being violated,” Dotts said.
“This raises an important question: Why would these employees choose to file what RNV characterizes as a baseless lawsuit? All of the plaintiffs except two were subject to the Touch-Back provision when they first filed and did not exit. Their pursuit of this lawsuit is less about justice and more about finding a pathway to extend their stay in the Commonwealth, work here, and get money from RNV that they do not deserve.
“RNV plans to mount a full defense against the allegations and intends to take the case all the way to a jury trial. RNV believes that a jury will see through the claims and recognize the underlying motivations of the plaintiffs. Ultimately, RNV’s stance is that the lawsuit is not about workplace injustice but rather a calculated attempt by a small group of former employees to leverage the legal system for personal benefit,” Dotts said.