News
Veterans’ suit against military contractor remains alive – Los Angeles Daily Journal
Veterans’ suit against military contractor remains alive
Plaintiffs claim their employer required them to work months with no days off
By Gautham Thomas, Los Angeles Daily Journal
A labor dispute in the small but lucrative world of private military contracting alleging grueling working conditions in Iraq received class certification in Nevada federal court, surviving a motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs, mostly military veterans who worked as armed guards in Iraq for a private military contractor, say their employer required them to work for months with no days off, in breach of contract. Compensating for breach of contract and the extra labor could cost the contractor as much as $232 million before punitive damages. Risinger v. SOC LLC et al., 12-CV63 (Nev. Dist. Ct., filed Jan. 13, 2012).
U.S. District Judge Miranda M. Du dismissed summary judgment motions from both sides along with granting class certification. In an order that was at times sharply worded, Du called arguments by contractor SOC LLC denying promissory fraud “incredible.”
“[Plaintiff] Risinger and other guards were required to work seven days a week for months on end due to intentional and preventable understaffing as a matter of practice, not because of the unpredictability of battle,” Du wrote in the Sept. 30 order.
SOC supplied armed guards to the Department of Defense for sites in Iraq in a contract that limited duty to 16-hour days and 72-hour work weeks. But SOC “bid to the man” for the contracts, submitting cost estimates that accounted only for the minimum number of guards required to staff the sites and leaving no room for additional personnel to account for days off or vacation time.
SOC argued that although it bid to the man it did not “staff to the man,” bringing in additional personnel during the period in question to account for rotation.
Attorneys at Littler Mendelson PC, which represents SOC and its parent company Day & Zimmerman in the suit, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
“The representative plaintiff worked four months without a day off,” said plaintiff’s counsel Devin McRae, partner at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McCrae LLP. “That’s a representative example of what was happening to these guys – they’re ex-soldiers, they’re going to perform.”
“We think the defendant took advantage of that, and it’s our position that they knew full well they weren’t going to able to meet the conditions of the contract and give these guys a day off.”
The contract claims stemming from the plaintiff’s work record remain after Du dismissed other aspects from the suit, including a claim under Iraqi labor law.
Data from USAspending.gov shows that SOC received at least $1 billion in contract payments between 2009 and 2015, mostly from the Department of Defense for guard services and the operation of ammunition facilities.
Though SOC’s employment agreements are vague as to the specific work hours per day and per week expected from its guards, the company misrepresented the required duty in recruitment discussions, argued McRae and co-counsel Scott E. Gizer, also a partner at Early Sullivan.
Du agreed, ruling that a reasonable jury could find SOC liable for its alleged misrepresentations and breach of contract.
The private military contracting industry is massive, with almost $170 billion spent on contractors by the Department of Defense in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2002 and 2011, according to a report by a bipartisan congressional commission.
Previous labor suits against private military contractors, including several against one-time industry heavyweight Blackwater, now known as Academi, have not always survived to trial.
One such suit against Blackwater – then called Xe Services LLC – alleging denial of benefits due to misclassification as independent contractors, was forced into arbitration based on the independent contractor agreements. Mercadante v. Xe Services, 11cv1044 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 15, 2015).
Another, by two Blackwater snipers who brought a False Claims Act suit in federal court in Virginia, was dismissed in district court but is scheduled to be heard by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 29. US ex rel Beauchamp v. Academi, 15-1148 (4th Cir., filed Feb. 11, 2015).