The underlying dispute centers on allegations by ten Philippine citizens who worked for Grand Isle Shipyard, LLC and its parent GIS, LLC as welders and fitters on offshore oil rigs. The workers allege that GIS maintained an implicit but enforced policy prohibiting Filipino employees from leaving the company's Galliano, Louisiana bunkhouse without permission while allowing non-Filipino workers to come and go freely. They also allege that during Hurricane Ida, GIS evacuated all but a few non-Filipino workers while requiring Filipinos to remain at the bunkhouse, where plaintiffs claim they endured weeks without electricity, running water, and with a hole in the roof. A separate set of allegations involves Filipino workers quarantined on vessels during the COVID-19 pandemic under conditions plaintiffs describe as filthy, unsafe, and cramped, with insufficient food and medical treatment.
Plaintiffs sought to certify two classes — one for Trafficking Victims Protection Act claims covering workers employed between June 28, 2012 and the present, and one for Fair Housing Act claims covering workers housed at the bunkhouse or quarantine vessels from June 28, 2020 forward. Both proposed classes were limited to Filipino B-1 visa holders.
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the Eastern District of Louisiana denied certification on all claims, ruling that individual issues of coercion and consent predominate under Rule 23(b)(3). On the TVPA forced-labor claims, the court sided with the analysis in David v. Signal International, LLC, an Eastern District of Louisiana decision finding that the forced-labor analysis must consider both the employer's conduct and the employee's vulnerabilities, requiring an individualized showing that each employee was actually coerced to work. The court declined to follow a Central District of California decision, Nunag-Tanedo v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, which had focused solely on employer conduct.
The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that GIS's alleged no-leave policy was so restrictive that it rendered any decision to work involuntary — the threshold that would have allowed a class-wide causation inference. The opinion noted that named plaintiffs could walk or jog on the property, made trips to Walmart via GIS-provided van transportation two to three times per week, and that the named plaintiffs themselves had walked out of the bunkhouse, gotten into a vehicle, and driven to Florida before the suit was filed. GIS also paid workers during bunkhouse stays, covered return airfare to the Philippines regardless of whether a worker completed a full contract term, and did not pressure workers to renew contracts.
The court found that the evidence plaintiffs offered to prove a uniform no-leave policy — primarily deposition testimony and declarations — instead revealed experiences that varied significantly from plaintiff to plaintiff. Defendants countered with 25 signed affidavits from putative class members stating they could leave the bunkhouse freely. Alleged verbal threats of termination or deportation were made by different individuals, to different plaintiffs, at different times, and some plaintiffs described the same GIS supervisors as approachable. Because the factfinder would need to assess each alleged threat individually to determine whether it occurred and whether it was sufficient to coerce that particular worker, individual issues predominated. The trafficking claims, which were premised entirely on the forced-labor claims, fell for the same reason.
The FHA claims were denied on similar grounds. The court found that plaintiffs pointed to no formal GIS policy treating Filipino employees differently from non-Filipino employees, that the discriminatory-conditions evidence was similarly anecdotal and conflicting — including disagreement among named plaintiffs themselves over whether they were denied second helpings of food — and that plaintiffs cited no case certifying FHA claims of this nature. The motion for class certification was denied in full.