Gonzalo Peralta, a Michigan-based immigration lawyer and senior staff attorney at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center (MIRC) in Grand Rapids, Mich., says that when two farmworkers, Feliciano Velasco Rojas and Luis Guzman Rojas, first came forward, it was evident that there were problematic issues with how the men found their way to Michigan.
“The manner in which they were transported clearly threats — all sorts of harm being essentially innuendoed by this individual, who was actually the one who physically transported our clients, were utilized to kind of compel their transportation,” Peralta says. “And then their subsequent working in these particularly egregious conditions.”
Uncovering Conditions of Coercion and Overcrowding
Peralta says this includes working 12-hour days and 30 people living in a small home.
“They were all crammed in a singular house,” Peralta says. “That was nearly 30 people in an unfurnished singular residence that had, I think, only three bedrooms. You had multiple people just sleeping on the floor in the basement. This is the housing that they were provided by the individual who physically transported and trafficked them for the purposes of working for First Pick in its blueberry operation.”
And Peralta says this case is unfortunately far more usual than reported.
“I wish it was the case that it was less common,” he says. “I fear that is much, much greater and much more common a problem than what is culturally understood.”
Peralta says workers who are trafficked might not understand that their working conditions could merit a legal intervention. And, quite simply, the workers are afraid that speaking up might jeopardize future employment.
“We believe it’s a much more common issue than is reported because of the particular vulnerabilities that the victims themselves have, particularly when they come in through the H-2 program, because they want to ensure that they can come in under those visas in the future,” he says. “And that means being beholden to an employer that may have been engaging in not only unlawful labor practices but trafficking as well.”
The Legal Foundation of the Lawsuit
In 2023, Feliciano Velasco Rojas and Luis Guzman Rojas filed a lawsuit against First Pick Farms, a blueberry operation in West Olive, Mich.
The original lawsuit alleges Guzman, Velasco and 30 other H-2A workers were trafficked from North Carolina to First Pick Farms and worked long hours in unsafe housing. The lawsuit also alleges supervisors threatened immigration enforcement and deportation to keep the workers from complaining or leaving.
The defendants, First Pick Farms and several related corporate entities such as Grow Blue Farms and HB Hive and Company, sought to dismiss the case in two motions in late 2024. In 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sally J. Berens ruled that the trafficking claims by Guzman and Velasco stand.
And on Jan. 2, 2026, Judge Paul Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan allowed the human trafficking and labor violation claims to proceed to the discovery phase.
Vindicating the Rights of H-2A Workers
As for the case moving forward, Peralta says he expects a mixed reaction to the case moving forward.
“I’m not going to be able to speak directly for on behalf of my clients, but I know that they were excited about the fact that the case is moving forward, but I feel that anyone who’s in these situations has some trepidation of unearthing these feelings or having to relive these past traumas, so I think that there is a mixed emotional response to the progress of this case,” he says. “Obviously, we are happy that this is going to be able to finally proceed so that we can try to vindicate the rights of our clients. Clearly, we believe in the basis for the lawsuit. We believe that the law was broken by these employers. And so there should be some recompense.”
Peralta, too, says he’s happy with how Maloney’s opinion lent credibility to the workers’ claims, especially facing the arguments made by the defendants in the motion to dismiss.
“A lot of the language in the opinion validates the issues that the plaintiffs have stated in their claim,” he says. “And so we’re happy that we can actually begin the process to ensure that people are made aware that this is a situation and hopefully for our particular clients that they get some sort of justice for the ills that were imposed upon them, essentially.”
Peralta says it’s crucial to take away that the plaintiffs met the necessary criteria to make a valid trafficking claim and violations of the Agricultural Worker Protection Act, despite the motions to dismiss.
“[The defendants] argued that as long as an employer would be able to say, we never ordered someone to do something illegal, that that should immunize them from the bad acts of their employee,” Peralta says. “And we’re glad that the judge was able to see through this and allowed the case to proceed based on the trafficking claims.”
And, because the defendants were initially brought to the U.S. through the H-2A guestworker visa program and then taken from the original employer, this also triggers federal law.
“Based on the fact that our clients were initially H-2A workers, and then when they were taken en route from their initial H-2A employer, that triggers the need for the federal law, the Agricultural Worker Protection Act,” he says. “Those particular obligations would trigger even when an employer is behaving in this manner. And so, again, the judge recognized that correctly, and those claims are allowed to continue as well.”
And Peralta says he awaits a scheduling notification from the court, which will lay out the timeline for the next steps for discovery and the interchange of information and documentation.
“We don’t have an exact timeline until the judges set that timeline, but we anticipate for the next six to 12 months that’s what we’ll be focusing on,” he says.
Why Delegation Fails as a Corporate Defense
Peralta says it’s important to remember it’s not enough for an employer to just delegate a particular person to be responsible, thus absolving the company from bearing the brunt of any potential legal implications.
“This trend for employers to try to create a legal buffer from responsibility by delegating certain responsibilities, delegating recruitment, delegating supervision, that should not be a reason to immunize them from unlawful acts that go on on their property, on their work sites,” he says. “I think that the judge recognized that.”
