Woman Claims CoreCivic Exploits Immigrants in ‘Forced Labor’ Detention Centers [UPDATE]
by Erin Shaak
Last Updated on March 17, 2022
Gonzalez v. Corecivic, Inc.
Filed: February 22, 2018 ◆§ 1:18cv169
Another lawsuit has been filed against CoreCivic, Inc. by a former immigration detainee who claims she and others were forced to provide free or nearly free labor for the defendant 'under threat of isolation, retaliation, and other deprivations.'
Case Updates
March 17, 2022 – Plaintiff, CoreCivic Agree to End ‘Forced Labor’ Lawsuit
The parties in the case detailed on this page have asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice.
No further details were provided in the motion to dismiss.
Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Another proposed class action has been filed against CoreCivic, Inc. by a former immigration detainee who claims she and others were forced to provide free or nearly free labor for the defendant “under threat of isolation, retaliation, and other deprivations.”
According to the suit, CoreCivic runs several detention centers in Texas – the Laredo Detention Center, the La Salle County Regional Detention Center, and the Hutto Residential Center – that house individuals waiting on immigration decisions. The plaintiff refers to these facilities as “forced labor camps,” claiming the defendant relies on detainees to “clean, maintain, and operate” its locations, paying them $1 or $2 per day instead of hiring employees to perform the same functions.
The case argues that detainees are told the work is “voluntary” but are threatened with negative consequences for refusing to work, including solitary confinement; “substantial and sustained restrictions;” and denial of “basic human services.” The plaintiff says the defendant refused to provide personal hygiene products such as toothpaste to people who did not work.
On top of that, the case claims detainees’ “wages” could only be spent on items available in CoreCivic’s “company store” and were not available to purchase products outside the facilities.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.