How Coercion And Forced Labor Claims Work Under Federal Law
Many workers come to the United States legally on a visa for a simple reason: work hard, earn money, and support their families back home. That opportunity should not become a weapon in an employer’s hands. An employee should not have to choose between staying silent and being threatened with deportation, losing a visa, or being blocked from returning to the United States. This is a whole level beyond just wrongful termination.
That is the fight at the center of Gomez-Echeverria v. Purpose Point Harvesting, LLC, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 26411, at *1–2 (6th Cir. Aug. 28, 2026). Purpose Point Harvesting recruited Guatemalan workers through the H-2A visa program for seasonal agricultural work in Michigan. The program prohibited employers from charging recruitment fees as a condition of employment.
The workers alleged a system of workplace coercion. They testified that defendants charged $2,500 recruitment fees, underpaid them, and used immigration-related threats to keep them quiet. Milton Gomez allegedly demanded that workers lie about their treatment and repeatedly threatened to deport them, “stain” their visas, or “black-list” them so they could not return to the United States.
Gomez denied charging recruitment fees and disputed substantial wrongdoing. Then came the particularly audacious move: defendants asserted counterclaims against the workers, including breach of contract. The opinion does not identify the factual basis for that counterclaim. But the posture is remarkable. The workers alleged exploitation and coercion. The employer responded, in part, by suing them back.
A jury heard both stories during an eight-day trial. It found defendants liable on every claim submitted against them except the Michigan Human Trafficking Victims Compensation Act claim against Lucille Gomez and rejected the breach-of-contract counterclaim. The judgment included $105,000 in compensatory damages and $450,000 in punitive damages. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Legal Takeaways
- Forced labor does not require physical violence. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that liability under the TVPRA can arise through threats of serious harm, abuse or threatened abuse of legal process, or a scheme intended to make a person believe that refusing to work will cause serious harm or physical restraint.
- Deportation threats and visa threats become especially significant when they are part of a broader pattern of workplace coercion designed to control an employee’s ability to complain, leave, or resist the employer.
When Do Employer Threats Become Illegal Forced Labor?
Employer threats can become illegal forced labor when they are used to make an employee believe that refusing to work, leaving, or resisting will cause serious harm, legal consequences, or physical restraint. Physical violence is not required. In Gomez-Echeverria, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that liability under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act can arise when labor is obtained through “serious harm or threats of serious harm,” “abuse or threatened abuse of legal process,” or a scheme intended to make a person believe that refusing to work will bring serious harm or physical restraint.
That employment law standard fit the workers’ evidence. They testified that Purpose Point charged illegal $2,500 recruitment fees, restricted their movement, confiscated passports, limited visitors, destroyed records, and repeatedly threatened deportation and other consequences if they spoke about their treatment. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that this evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that the conduct was “intentional and egregious.”
The employer offered a very different story. Gomez denied charging recruitment fees, claimed the passports were collected only for safekeeping, and maintained that workers went to other stores and participated in social events. Those competing accounts created a credibility fight. The jury heard both and found defendants liable on every claim submitted against them except one claim against one defendant.
Employment law does not require a jury to evaluate each threat, restriction, or confiscated document in isolation. The question under the TVPRA was whether defendants knowingly obtained labor, or knowingly benefited from a venture obtaining labor, through one of the prohibited forms of coercion. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized that a qualifying “pattern” involves “repeated action,” rather than “an isolated incident.” The employee rights protected by the statute therefore reach a system of coercion built from multiple acts, even when the employer offers an innocent explanation for individual pieces of that system.
A threat does not need a locked door to become forced labor. Fear can do the locking.
Practical Tip: If an employer threatens your immigration status, visa, police involvement, financial harm, or other consequences for leaving or complaining, preserve the exact words, date, witnesses, and surrounding events. Evidence showing repeated threats or restrictions can help establish a pattern of coercion rather than leaving the dispute dependent on one employee’s recollection of one conversation.
Best Wrongful Termination Lawyer Blogs on Point:
Can My Employer Threaten To Blacklist My Visa If I Speak Up?
Yes. A visa threat can become powerful evidence of workplace coercion when the employer uses it to silence an employee or make continued work feel like the only safe option. In Gomez-Echeverria, Gomez allegedly told workers to keep quiet and lie about their treatment to Department of Labor officials, medical staff, and others. He also repeatedly threatened to deport them, “stain” their visas, or “black-list” them so they could not return to the United States.
Those threats carried unusual weight because the workers’ ability to return to the United States mattered enormously to them. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs were “undeniably vulnerable victims” who feared reprisal and the loss of future work in the United States. Luis Gomez-Echeverria testified that he earned $7 per day working on a palm plantation in Guatemala. Artemio Coronado Esteban testified that he could not read and could only “sort of” write. The plaintiffs also could not speak English.
That context is critical. A threat to blacklist a visa is not just an insult or a nasty comment when the employer controls access to a job that may provide far more income than the employee can earn at home. It can become economic leverage, immigration leverage, and workplace leverage all at once.
The employer disputed substantial wrongdoing. But the jury was entitled to weigh that denial against testimony that the threats were paired with demands for silence and lies. Credibility disputes like that belong to the jury, not the judge. The jury found defendants liable on the claims presented to it, with one exception involving one defendant, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
A visa should be a path to work, not a leash.
Practical Tip: If an employer threatens to blacklist your visa, damage your immigration status, or stop you from returning to the United States, save the exact words and the surrounding message or conversation. Evidence that the threat was tied to silence, complaints, or continued work can help show that the employer was using immigration consequences as leverage.
Best Employee’s Rights Attorney Blogs on Point:
Can My Employer Control My Passport, Money, And Movement?
An employer controlling an employee’s passport, money, movement, and communications can provide powerful evidence that the employment relationship has become something far more coercive. In Gomez-Echeverria, the workers did not rely on deportation threats alone. They described multiple ways defendants allegedly controlled ordinary parts of their lives outside the fields.
Start with their identification. Defendants regularly confiscated the workers’ passports and Social Security cards. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals specifically noted that federal law prohibits knowingly destroying, concealing, removing, confiscating, or possessing certain immigration documents in specified circumstances. Gomez offered an innocent explanation: the passports were collected for safekeeping. That competing explanation gave the jury a factual dispute to resolve.
Then there was money. Lucille Gomez allegedly made herself an authorized user on the workers’ local bank accounts without their knowledge. The workers testified that she withdrew $2,500 from Luis Gomez-Echeverria’s account without his authorization as a purported recruitment fee. They also alleged that they were required to buy food from a store owned by her father.
And the control allegedly extended to daily life. The workers testified that defendants restricted cellphone use and visitors and accompanied them when they went shopping. When Hervil Gomez-Echeverria injured his thumb, he allegedly went without adequate medical treatment for two weeks until the injury became infected and required surgery.
Any one fact might invite an employer explanation. Put together, they tell a different story. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the confiscated passports, restrictions on movement, recruitment fees, destroyed employment records, repeated deportation threats, living conditions, and medical-care evidence when evaluating the reprehensibility of defendants’ conduct.
Control becomes harder to dismiss as coincidence when it follows an employee everywhere.
Practical Tip: Preserve evidence showing the full pattern, not merely the worst incident. Bank records, messages about passports, restrictions on transportation or visitors, employment records, and medical communications can show how separate acts fit together as evidence of workplace coercion and interference with employee rights.
Best Employment Law Firm Blogs on Point:
What Should I Do If My Employer Is Threatening My Visa Or Immigration Status?
If your employer is using deportation threats, visa threats, financial pressure, or other workplace coercion to control you, choosing the right employment lawyer matters. These cases can turn on patterns that are easy to miss when each event is viewed separately. The best attorney will know how to connect the threats, documents, money, witnesses, employment records, and employer explanations into evidence that shows what was really happening.
Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, represents employees, not employers. We are one of the largest law firms in the United States focused on employee rights, with the resources to take on employers that may have far more money and power than the employee challenging them. Our attorneys have substantial litigation and trial experience because an employer is much more likely to take a claim seriously when the lawyer across the table is prepared to take the case to a jury.
Whether the issue involves forced labor, workplace coercion, discrimination, wrongful termination, or an employee who believes they were wrongfully fired, the first step is understanding what happened and what employment law actually provides. Spitz offers a free initial consultation and our No Fee Guarantee means eligible clients do not pay attorney fees unless we obtain a recovery. If something about the way your employer is treating you feels wrong, tell us what happened. We will listen, evaluate the facts, and give you a straight answer about your employee rights.
Frequently Asked Questions About Employer Visa Threats And Forced Labor
An employer’s deportation threat can become evidence of illegal workplace coercion when it is used to make an employee keep working, remain silent, or fear the consequences of resisting. Employment law can protect employee rights even when the employer never uses physical force.
Can an employer threaten to blacklist my work visa?
Visa threats can be legally significant when an employer uses them as leverage over an employee’s work or conduct. Threatening to blacklist, damage, or interfere with an employee’s ability to return to the United States may help establish forced labor or workplace coercion when connected to demands for continued work or silence.
Is it legal for my employer to take my passport?
Taking or controlling an employee’s passport can raise serious legal issues, particularly when it is combined with restrictions, threats, or other conduct designed to control the employee. An employment lawyer evaluating forced labor should examine the passport issue together with the employer’s other conduct rather than treating it as an isolated event.
Can I have an employment law claim even if my employer never physically forced me to work?
Yes. Forced labor does not necessarily require physical violence or physical restraint. Threats of serious harm, threatened abuse of legal process, and patterns of coercion can create liability when they are used to obtain labor.
Is threatening my immigration status considered employment discrimination or wrongful termination?
Not automatically. Forced labor, employment discrimination, and wrongful termination are different legal issues. An employee who was wrongfully fired or subjected to discrimination may have additional employment law claims, but the particular facts and applicable law determine what claims exist. A qualified attorney should evaluate each potential claim separately.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This employee rights, forced labor, workplace coercion, discrimination, and wrongful termination blog provides general information about employment law and is not legal advice. Every employee’s situation is different, and whether an employer violated the law depends on the particular facts and applicable law. If you believe you were subjected to forced labor, deportation threats, visa threats, discrimination, wrongful termination, or were otherwise wrongfully fired, consult a qualified employment lawyer or attorney about your specific circumstances. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome, and nothing in this blog promises any particular result. This content may constitute attorney advertising or a legal advertisement depending on the jurisdiction. Reading this blog, visiting our website, or contacting Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, does not by itself create an attorney-client relationship.