|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A federal judge hearing a lawsuit by several former New Bedford fish house workers has rejected an attempt to send the dispute to arbitration — but left the door open for the companies to seek arbitration again.
The workers allege that a former floor manager at Marder Trawling’s waterfront fish house, Francisco Ixcotoyac Dionicio, extorted money as a condition of employment. They are seeking unpaid overtime, damages, and legal fees from Marder, a temporary staffing agency, and Ixcotoyac Dionicio.
Workforce Unlimited, Inc., the temporary staffing agency that employed the laborers, argued that the dispute had to go to arbitration, not court, because of documents the workers signed early in their employment.
But the workers claimed they were unaware that they signed agreements to arbitrate.
“The totality of the facts raised by Plaintiffs sparks meaningful questions about whether Workforce Defendants provided Workforce Plaintiffs with sufficient notice of the arbitration agreements,” Judge Leo T. Sorokin of U.S. District Court Massachusetts wrote in a decision late Friday.
Sorokin denied the companies’ motions without prejudice, which means the companies can try again to force arbitration.
The judge ordered the parties to submit a status report by this Friday. In it, the companies can propose a schedule for another motion to compel arbitration.
“The Court anticipates holding an evidentiary hearing on any renewed motion to compel [arbitration] if necessary to resolve factual determinations,” the judge wrote.
The decision came days after a July 6 hearing on the motion where the plaintiffs were present in the gallery and accompanied by representatives from the Centro Comunitario de Trabajadores, the New Bedford organization that helped them organize the suit.
“Within four days, the Court issued its decision, and we believe this is a direct result of the Plaintiffs being in the courtroom with us,” said Keally Cieslik, an attorney for Justice at Work representing the plaintiffs. “The Judge was able to see for himself that the Plaintiffs and putative class members are not people who can sit around for years waiting for a decision on just this question, while delaying the prosecution of their claims for money stolen from them — money they need now more than ever.”
In a statement to The Light, a spokesman for Marder minimized the decision’s impact.
“The Court’s ruling is procedural and should not be mischaracterized as a significant victory for the plaintiffs,” the statement read. “The Court did not hold that the arbitration agreements are invalid or unenforceable. Instead, the ruling primarily concerns disputed factual questions about how Workforce Unlimited handled its hiring and onboarding process.”
The statement said that Marder “is entitled to enforce the arbitration agreements” and said it reserves the right to raise the issue again.
The complaint accused Ixcotoyac Dionicio, the former floor manager at Marder, of requiring workers he recruited to pay him $100 weekly as a condition of employment. The complaint also alleged that Ixcotoyac Dionicio obligated workers living in Rhode Island to commute to and from work using vans he owned and that he charged $60 weekly for the service.
The attorneys for Marder Trawling and Workforce Unlimited deny that the companies were aware of Ixcotoyac Dionicio’s alleged extortion scheme. Ixcotoyac Dionicio’s attorney, Jason A. Dixon-Acosta, denies the allegations against his client.
Dueling testimony
At the July 6 hearing, lawyers sparred over the validity of the arbitration agreements. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said that the general conditions of employment contributed to a coercive environment propelling the workers to sign.
An affidavit by Ana Sanchez, Workforce’s director of human resources, said all employees at the company are provided onboarding documents in English and Spanish and given time to review them. They could even bring them home “if requested.”
The four Workforce plaintiffs submitted their own affidavits in March which contradicted Sanchez’s claims. Maria Gomez, whose first language is Mam, an Indigenous Mayan language, learned Spanish and became literate as an adult. Her affidavit described her interaction with a Workforce representative, also named Maria.
“When Maria came to the cafeteria, she put a stack of documents in front of me and told me to sign where she pointed as she flipped through the pages,” Gomez said. She said there was no explanation and no one asked if she understood what she was signing.
“I signed the documents where I was told to sign because I understood that if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be allowed to continue working at Marder,” Gomez said.
Extortion allegations
The plaintiffs also argued that Ixcotoyac Dionicio essentially admitted to the extortion racket when he issued partial payments — recorded on stationery from the Centro Comunitario de Trabajadores and notarized on June 28, 2025 — to the four workers. Dixon-Acosta told The Light he disagreed with that characterization.
“The circumstances under which he signed those documents were much more coercive than what the plaintiffs complained about here,” he told The Light. “He didn’t extort anyone.”
Cieslik called such proclamations ridiculous and that Ixcotoyac Dionicio’s “misconduct” was a matter of court record.
“The narrative that Mr. Ixcotoyac Dionicio was coerced is absurd,” Cieslik said in an email.
Marder terminated Ixcotoyac Dionicio’s employment after news surfaced of multiple charges in New Bedford District Court of indecent assault and battery on a person 14 and over. A discovery hearing in that case is scheduled for July 15. Dixon-Acosta has repeatedly denied the charges against his client.
John Gannon, the attorney for Workforce, and its owner, Andrew Wilke, did not respond to multiple emails from The Light requesting comment on the decision.
The lawsuit, filed in October, has since gained 19 more plaintiffs formerly employed by Marder or Workforce.
Workers involved in the suit have participated in two protests outside Marder’s New Bedford plant, on Nov. 4, 2025 and April 9, 2026. They have also filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board against Marder after 29 workers, employed by Workforce, were let go.
Two of the named plaintiffs in the wages case were among the 29 and claimed the move was retaliatory. Marder previously told The Light the firings were a result of seasonal trends and that it denies the allegations.
Contact Kevin G. Andrade at kandrade@newbedfordlight.org
I attended the April 9 event and still have questions and concerns. After speaking to a rep from the non-profit regarding this matter I was told that there was a PRA, Private Right of Action, issued for this case. A PRA is granted by the authority who would be overseein criminal investigations. In this case it should have been the Fair Labor Division of the Attorney General’s Office. From what I have learned, and reading this article, there are very serious labor issues. First, paying a royalty or a “fee” to be allowed to work, also known as a kickback, as defined herein, is a violation of federal and state law. The question is whether the foreman was an agent of the employer, or the employment agency, and if so then this a violation of the Copeland Act, which is a federal statute relating specifically to kick backs in employment. This has happened in the construction industry where M.G.L. ch149 and the federal Davis Bacon Act is applicable on public projects. To add on to this, there appears to be unpaid overtime and forced use of transportation by the foreman, unless again the employment agency is connected to this scheme. This is also a conflict and a violation of the laws of the Commonwealth. It is unfortunate that these workers, and possibly others, have been impacted with these illegal actions. Also, the company, Marder, who claims not knowing anything about this obviously went out of their way to force workers to sign documents to distance themselves from any legal actions. This, in and of itself, begs the question regarding their knowledge to the criminal activity taking place on their property under their roof, directly in front of them. I have decided to make a statement, not just as a reader, but as a professional. I worked 30 in Boston, for a non profit, Labor/Management Office, conducting research and investigating public projects, both federal and state. Our office coordinated with the Department of Labor’s Office in Taunton and Boston, and the Fair Labor Division of the Attorney General’s Office. We uncovered kick back schemes, contractors cheating workers out of OT, paying below the posted wages on the project. and certain contractors who forced their workers to report to the shop 2 hours earlier to load the trucks and then forced them to ride in the company trucks, then deducting the “cost of transportation form their wages. Our office was successful in every aspect of the many cases uncovered and turned over to the prosecutorial authorities. Furthermore, our office refused to work with outside attorneys who wanted to our office to obtain a PRA so they could “assist” us with the case. We worked closely with the workers affected and helped walked through the process. Our office recovered millions in back wage claims and reimbursement for illegal deductions. So, having said all this, and now looking at this specific situation which is not a small case of litigation, why a PRA. I know the workers are immigrants and may not be fluent in English, but when we encountered the same situation our office immediately reached out to immigration attorney’s to assist and protect them while their cases were adjudicated. I wish the best for these workers and truly hope this can be resolved and this foreman should be serving time.