May 8, 2015
CapitalPress.com
3
Pregnancy discrimination suit settled
By DAN WHEAT
Capital Press
EAST
WENATCHEE,
Wash. — A tree fruit grower
has agreed to pay $17,500 to
a former employee for firing
her because she was pregnant.
Tiny’s Organic, of East
Wenatchee, agreed to pay Ma-
ria Guillen $17,500 and take
steps to prevent future gender
or pregnancy discrimination
under a consent decree set-
tling a lawsuit, according to
the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
The EEOC filed a lawsuit
against Tiny’s Organic in
U.S. District Court last Sep-
tember. The suit alleged the
company violated federal law
by firing Guillen nine days
after she disclosed she was
pregnant with twins. Guillen
had worked for the company
for six years and had been
promoted to supervisor.
Tiny’s Organic cited fears
for Guillen’s safety and the
company’s liability even
though her doctor said it was
all right for her to perform
her job without medical re-
strictions, the EEOC said in
a news release.
Greg McPherson, own-
er of Tiny’s, declined com-
ment.
The decree, signed by a
judge April 30, is in effect
for two years under court
Feds to decide on FMMO
hearing by late summer
By TIM HEARDEN
Capital Press
CHICO, Calif. — A fed-
eral agency will likely de-
cide by late summer wheth-
er to hold a hearing on a
proposed milk marketing
order for California, offi-
cials said May 5.
The USDA’s Agricultural
Marketing Service is con-
sidering a proposal by Cal-
ifornia Dairies Inc., Land
O’Lakes Inc., and Dairy
Farmers of America and
three alternatives as the co-
ops seek what they would
consider a more equitable
price for milk used to man-
ufacture cheese.
A proposal by the Dairy
Institute of California,
which represents proces-
sors, would set up a feder-
al order but use a pricing
methodology closer to that
which is now employed
by the state Department of
Food and Agriculture, and
two proposed amendments
would carve out specific al-
lowances for producer-han-
dlers and out-of-state milk
producers.
“We’ve been spending
the past two years talking
with producers and people
in the industry about where
and how we should proceed
with a marketing order,”
AMS Dairy Program depu-
ty administrator Dana Coale
told about 40 producers at
an outreach meeting with
producers at the Califor-
nia State University-Chico
student center. “We don’t
market milk in Washington,
D.C. This is to make sure
we understand how you
market milk in California.”
There are 10 federal
marketing orders govern-
ing wholesale milk prices in
various regions, including
part of the Pacific North-
west and most of the South
and Midwest. The AMS re-
ceived the co-ops’ petition
for another marketing or-
der for California on Feb.
5, and the other proposals
were filed before an April
10 deadline.
Proponents have until
May 20 to make changes in
their proposals. Meanwhile,
the AMS is doing financial
analyses of each of the pro-
posals as well as other re-
search, Coale said.
“If in fact the USDA de-
cides to go to hearing, we
will publish that analysis,”
Coale said.
A courtroom-style hear-
ing would be presided over
by an administrative judge,
and U.S. Agriculture Secre-
tary Tom Vilsack would use
evidence from the hearing
to determine if a marketing
order is needed.
If so, a draft rule would
go through a public com-
ment period before a final
rule is voted on by produc-
ers, said Erin Taylor, an
AMS senior marketing spe-
cialist. A marketing order
would need support from at
least two-thirds of produc-
ers or enough producers to
represent two-thirds of the
milk produced, Taylor said.
The Chico meeting was
Tim Hearden/Capital Press
Cows are milked at VanderWoude Dairy near Merced, Calif. The
federal government is considering alternatives for a marketing
order for Class 4b milk in California.
the first of three planned
this week to educate pro-
ducers and processors about
the proposals, with similar
meetings set for May 6 in
Fresno and May 7 in Palm-
dale, Calif. Attendees were
invited to submit written
questions about the techni-
cal aspects of proposals, but
merits of the proposals were
not discussed.
Producers who came
into the Chico meeting with
opinions about whether to
go to a marketing order
didn’t change their minds
after hearing 30-minute pre-
sentations from each of the
proponents. But they said
the meeting was worthwhile.
“I think it’s very good for
dairymen and processors to
understand what’s going on
with the federal order,” said
Sonoma, Calif., producer
George Mertens, a longtime
advocate for a marketing or-
der.
“It’s all about education,”
said Chico dairyman Jim
Schroer, who also favors a
federal order. “It’s so im-
portant in this day and age
for us all to know what’s out
there to make a decision.”
About 80 people were
signed up for the meeting
in Fresno, officials said. Si-
mon VanderWoude, who op-
erates a dairy near Merced,
said he was attending meet-
ing to gather information.
“I’m pretty up to speed
on what’s going on, but
they’re just an opportunity
to kind of vet the different
proposals,” VanderWoude
said. “I think it’ll be useful
for dairymen to hear that
they don’t necessarily get
to write the rule … As fun
or as interesting as that
sounds, it’s just not realis-
tic. But we’ll see how it all
shakes out.”
The proposals come as
the CDFA has set a June
3 hearing in Sacramento
to consider changes to the
pricing formula of Class
4b milk, which is used for
cheese.
Producers have been
complaining for years that
the value of whey in Cali-
fornia’s pricing formula has
not kept pace with the whey
value in Class III formulas
in federal milk marketing
orders. About 40 percent of
milk produced in California
is for cheese, producers say.
Western United Dairymen
and other producer groups
have petitioned the CDFA
numerous times to raise
the state’s minimum price
of 4b milk, claiming more
than 350 dairies have either
closed or left the state since
2007 because the state’s
pricing formula hasn’t kept
pace with escalating feed,
fuel and other costs. Legisla-
tive attempts to address the
pricing issue have been un-
successful.
“In our California law, it
states that we’re supposed to
be in line with federal pric-
ing,” Mertens said. “We ar-
en’t in line. We haven’t been
for five years.”
Processors have main-
tained that pricing for pro-
ducers has been improving.
The Dairy Institute of Cal-
ifornia contends that estab-
lishing a federal milk mar-
keting order for California is
not warranted because disor-
derly marketing conditions
don’t exist.
If the petition for a feder-
al marketing order progress-
es, a producer vote on join-
ing the federal order system
could happen in early 2017,
CDI spokeswoman Marie
teVelde has said.
AMS officials remain
neutral throughout the pro-
cess as to whether a market-
ing order should be adopted.
Coale said the information
gathered during the out-
reach meetings will help
the agency determine if a
hearing is needed but won’t
count as evidence in the
hearing.
“We look at where the
proposals came from and
look at what the industry is
doing,” she said. “We take
everything into consider-
ation.”
jurisdiction and EEOC
monitoring, she said. The
$17,500 was negotiated for
loss of pay and compensa-
tory damages for emotion-
al distress, said May Che,
EEOC senior trial attorney in
Seattle.
Terminating an employee
because she is pregnant vi-
olates the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 as amended by the
Pregnancy Discrimination
Act. The EEOC said it first
tried to reach a settlement
and then filed the suit seek-
ing monetary damages for
Guillen and injunctive relief
that typically would include
training on anti-discrimina-
tion laws, posting notices and
compliance reporting.
Under the consent decree,
the company will provide an
anti-discrimination policy and
annual training to all staff in
English and Spanish. It also
will set up procedures for han-
dling complaints and holding
management accountable. It
further will post a notice re-
garding the case and report
annually to EEOC for two
years, the EEOC said.
“Congress made it clear
that under the Pregnancy Dis-
crimination Act, the decision
to work while being pregnant
is reserved for each individual
woman to make for herself,”
said Nancy Sienko, director of
EEOC’s Seattle office.
Tensions over federal grizzly study
and Washington law surface
By DON JENKINS
Capital Press
OLYMPIA — A national
park superintendent Tuesday
faced pointed questioning from
a state senator about whether the
federal government will pay any
attention to Washington’s ban
on turning loose grizzly bears.
The National Park Service and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
are studying how to re-establish
grizzlies in the “North Cascades
ecosystem,” a 9,800-square mile
area that covers 14 percent of the
state. About 90 percent of the
land is controlled by the federal
government.
Federal agencies have talk-
ed for years about releasing
grizzlies to kickstart an almost
imperceptible population. In re-
sponse to a federal proposal to
import fewer than 10 bears two
decades ago, the Legislature in
1995 — by a 44-5 vote in the
Senate and 96-0 in the House —
passed a law stating, “Grizzly
bears shall not be transplanted
or introduced into the state.”
At the time, testimony on
the bill focused on the impact
grizzlies would have on public
safety and the cattle industry in
north-central Washington.
The 20-year-old law came
up during a presentation by
North Cascades National Park
Don Jenkins/Capital Press
Washington state Sens. Kirk Pearson, left, and Brian Hatfield listen
May 4 to a presentation on federal plans to establish grizzly bears in
the North Cascades. Both senators had questions for federal officials.
Superintendent Karen Tay-
lor-Goodrich to the Senate Nat-
ural Resources and Parks Com-
mittee.
“You’re looking at bring
bears into our state?” asked the
committee’s chairman, Mon-
roe Republican Kirk Pearson,
whose district includes a portion
of the North Cascades.
Goodrich said federal agen-
cies are looking at a “full range
of alternatives,” including re-
leasing grizzlies.
“Do you see yourself usurp-
ing our state laws in doing this?”
Pearson said.
Taylor-Goodrich answered:
“Not at this time, no.”
The federal agencies are
scheduled to decide in the fall of
2017 how to go about establish-
ing grizzlies.
Pearson said after the meet-
ing that it’s unclear how much
influence legislators, residents
and state wildlife managers will
have.
“That’s what’s most import-
ant,” he said. “I kind of agree
with upholding the (state law).”
Taylor-Goodrich said that
even if a “small number” of
grizzlies were released, the
North Cascades would not have
a sustainable population for 50
to 125 years. Bear sightings
would be rare for the first 10 to
20 years, she said.
The 1995 law also instructs
the state Department of Fish
and Wildlife to encourage na-
tive grizzly populations to grow.
“The way I read it, we’re not
against grizzly bears,” Pearson
said.
Migrant housing to open soon
By DAN WHEAT
Capital Press
CASHMERE, Wash. — A
new $6 million, 200-bed mi-
grant farmworker housing fa-
cility will open in Cashmere in
mid-May.
Eventually, it may replace a
380-bed camp in nearby Moni-
tor.
The new facility, named
Brender Creek in honor of
Cashmere’s first pioneer, will be
operated by Washington Grow-
ers League of Yakima and was
built by the league with a state
Department of Commerce grant.
The league built a 270-bed
migrant farmworker facility,
Sage Bluff, near Malaga, south
of Wenatchee in 2010. It’s about
30 miles southeast of Cashmere.
In between, the migrant camp at
a Chelan County park in Mon-
itor has been operated by the
county and funded by the county
and state since 2001. That camp
Dan Wheat/Capital Press
A new 200-bed migrant
farmworker housing facility,
Brender Creek, is seen May 1
in Cashmere, Wash.
may close at the end of this year
for lack of funding.
“We informed Chelan Coun-
ty a couple of years ago that 2015
would be the last year the state
would fund operation of Mon-
itor,” said Janet Masella, man-
aging director of the Housing
Finance Unit of the Department
of Commerce in Olympia.
It was never meant to be per-
manent and isn’t financially vi-
able for the state since facilities
will need replacement, she said.
The county thought the state’s
commitment was year-by-year,
said Keith Goehner, a Chel-
an County commissioner and
Dryden pear grower.
The county doesn’t have the
money to fund the camp alone
but is committed to farmwork-
er housing, balancing need and
cost, he said.
The Monitor camp cost
$420,352 to operate in 2014 with
$289,850 coming from the state,
$99,915 in nightly per-bed fees
paid by occupants or growers,
and $30,587 from other county
sources, Masella said.
The camp has 200 beds in 25
trailers and 180 beds in 30 tents.
The tents are only used in sum-
mer, mainly by cherry pickers,
and the trailers are used into the
fall by pear and apple pickers,
said Edmundo Gonzalez, camp
manager.
“We were full last cherry sea-
son and turned away about 300
people during the peak for more
than two weeks,” Gonzalez said.
rop-6-26-5/#17
19-2/#T4D
• Maximize herbicide
performance
• Improve water and
nutrient absorption
• Increase root mass
• Increase crop yield
19-2/#5