SPEAKER_01: 0:18

Imagine for a second that you're a highly skilled professional, say, living in the Philippines. You've spent years in nursing school studying anatomy, pharmacology, patient care.

SPEAKER_00: 0:30

Right.

SPEAKER_01: 0:31

You are really good at what you do. You're dedicated.

SPEAKER_00: 0:33

Right.

SPEAKER_01: 0:34

But you also have a dream, you know, a dream that goes beyond your local hospital. You have the uh the American dream.

SPEAKER_02: 0:41

Aaron Powell It's a really powerful narrative, isn't it? That idea of coming to the United States, earning a strong wage, building a new life, maybe sending money back home to support family.

SPEAKER_01: 0:51

Exactly.

SPEAKER_02: 0:52

It's a story that powers so much of our global economy, really. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01: 0:55

It really is. And then one day it happens. You get the offer. The offer of a lifetime. A recruitment agency reaches out to you. Okay. They're offering a green cart, a guaranteed job in New York City, a chance to live in the big apple. It's it's everything you've worked for, all packaged up in a nice crisp PDF and set right to your inbox.

SPEAKER_02: 1:15

Aaron Powell, it sounds like the golden ticket. Or at least that's how it's presented.

SPEAKER_01: 1:18

That's exactly how it looks. It looks like the start of a whole new chapter. But today, on this deep dive, we're going to look at what happens when that golden ticket comes with some, well, some very heavy, very invisible chains. Because we are diving into a stack of documents, court orders, complaints, testimonies that tell a much darker story.

SPEAKER_02: 1:39

Aaron Powell We are looking at the fine print and not just, you know, the boring terms and conditions that everyone just scrolls past. Right. We're talking about a contract so restrictive, so punitive, that a federal court eventually had to step in and ask a pretty terrifying question. Is this employment or is this actually forced labor?

SPEAKER_01: 1:58

Aaron Powell And it's a question that seems extreme. It really does. Until you see the numbers.

SPEAKER_02: 2:03

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01: 2:03

And the number that just it leaps out at you from these documents. I mean, it literally made my jaw drop when I first read the complaint, is$90,000.

SPEAKER_02: 2:11

Aaron Powell That is the headline figure, a$90,000 penalty.

SPEAKER_01: 2:15

A penalty.

SPEAKER_02: 2:16

And just to be clear, that isn't a bonus. That's not a salary. No. That is the fee for quitting.

SPEAKER_01: 2:21

We are going to unpack exactly how a nurse ends up owing their boss the price of a luxury car just for quitting a job they hate. But first, let's introduce the players in this whole drama. The case is Magtolles v. United Staffing Registry, Inc.

SPEAKER_02: 2:37

Right. So on one side, you have the plaintiffs, these are the workers. We have Mary Grace Magtolls, Ara C. Tan, and Anna Myrene Espinosa. They're all registered nurses. Okay. And we also have Anna Mervine Espinosa, who goes by Bing, and she was a physical therapy aide.

SPEAKER_01: 2:51

And on the other side, who are they up against?

SPEAKER_02: 2:53

The defendants. That's United Staffing Registry, Inc., which is a staffing agency based in Queens, New York. And what they do is place nurses into nursing homes and rehabilitation clinics.

SPEAKER_01: 3:03

And there's a person behind the company.

SPEAKER_02: 3:04

Aaron Powell Yes. The man behind the curtain, you could say. The owner and CEO, Benjamin H. Santos.

SPEAKER_01: 3:09

Aaron Powell So the mission for this deep dive is to really understand how a seemingly standard employment dispute, something that you know happens every day. Yeah. How that could spiral into a federal class action lawsuit involving the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the TVPA. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_02: 3:25

And that acronym TVPA is so crucial here. Right. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act is a federal law that's designed to combat human trafficking. And usually when we think of that, our minds go to physical force.

SPEAKER_01: 3:38

Aaron Powell Sure. Locks on doors, confiscated passports. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_02: 3:41

People being smuggled in cargo containers, that sort of thing. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01: 3:44

Yeah, the Hollywood version of trafficking.

SPEAKER_02: 3:46

Trevor Burrus Exactly. But this case really challenges us to look at the idea of force differently. It asks, can a piece of paper be a weapon? Can a contract be a shackle? If I can terrify you financially, do I own you just as much as if I had locked the door?

SPEAKER_01: 4:02

Aaron Powell It's a really heavy question. So here's our roadmap for the next hour or so. We're going to start by dissecting the contract itself, the indentured servitude clauses, if you will. Then we're going to look at the reality of the work because that dream job in New York, well, it turned out to be more of a nightmare of underpayment and overwork.

SPEAKER_02: 4:20

Aaron Powell Then we'll get into how the company fought back because they didn't just defend themselves, they actually went on the attack and countersued the nurses.

SPEAKER_01: 4:28

Right. And finally, we will walk through the court's landmark ruling that just tore these contracts to shreds and crucially held the owner personally responsible.

SPEAKER_02: 4:38

Let's do it.

SPEAKER_01: 4:39

Okay, let's get into segment one. The contract. Or, as I actually noted in the margins of the source material here, indenture by another name. You've got the specific terms there in front of you. Walk us through what these nurses actually signed.

SPEAKER_02: 4:52

Aaron Powell Okay. So the nurse plaintiffs, that's Magtolls, Tan, and Anna Myrene Espinosa, they all signed what United Staffing called their standard contract. Aaron Powell Standard. Yeah, standard. Now, usually an employment contract just says, you work for us, we pay you X amount. Pretty simple. But this one had a very specific commitment period.

SPEAKER_01: 5:10

Aaron Powell How long was the commitment?

SPEAKER_02: 5:12

Well, on paper it was a three-year term. Here's the first catch. It wasn't just three calendar years. It explicitly required a minimum of 6,000 hours of work.

SPEAKER_01: 5:20

Aaron Ross Powell 6,000 hours.

SPEAKER_02: 5:21

6,000. And in some of the variations of the contract, it was a little less, maybe 5,100 or 5,616. But that 6,000 hour figure was the main benchmark.

SPEAKER_01: 5:31

Aaron Powell Okay, let's pause and do some quick math here. Because 6,000 hours sounds a bit abstract. A standard full-time job in the US is 40 hours a week.

SPEAKER_02: 5:40

Right.

SPEAKER_01: 5:41

If you work 50 weeks a year, you know, taking two weeks off for vacation, that's exactly 2,000 hours. So 2,000 hours times three years, that's 6,000 hours. So I mean, mathematically, that tracks.

SPEAKER_02: 5:55

Mathematically, yes. It looks reasonable on the surface, but practically, it puts all the power, every last bit of it, in the employer's hands. Oh, so well, what if they don't schedule you for 40 hours? What if the census is low at the nursing home that week and they only need you for 30 hours?

SPEAKER_00: 6:12

Oh, right.

SPEAKER_02: 6:13

That three-year contract suddenly stretches into a four-year contract. You're completely locked in until you hit that magic number of six thousand.

SPEAKER_01: 6:19

And what if you get sick?

SPEAKER_02: 6:20

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01: 6:21

Or, I don't know, a global pandemic hits and you're out sick for a few weeks.

SPEAKER_02: 6:24

The clock just stops. You are stuck. You're stuck until you make up every single one of those hours. But honestly, the length of the contract isn't even the worst part.

SPEAKER_01: 6:32

It gets worse.

SPEAKER_02: 6:33

Oh yeah. The worst part is what happens if you try to leave early. This is the infamous liquidated damages clause.

SPEAKER_01: 6:41

The$90,000 question.

SPEAKER_02: 6:43

Precisely. The contract stated in black and white that if a nurse breaches the agreement, which just means they quit before hitting hour number 6,000, they must pay United Staffing$15.

SPEAKER_00: 6:56

Okay,$15.

SPEAKER_02: 6:57

$15 for every single hour remaining on the contract.

SPEAKER_01: 7:00

Wait, wait.$15 per unworked hour.

SPEAKER_02: 7:03

Correct. For every hour left on that 6,000 hour tally. Wow. So let's run a quick scenario. You're a nurse, you sign all the papers back in the Philippines, United Staffing flies you to New York, you show up at the nursing home on your first day.

SPEAKER_00: 7:16

Okay.

SPEAKER_02: 7:17

You look around, maybe you see something that seems unsafe, or you just realize this isn't what you were promised at all. You say, I can't do this, I quit.

SPEAKER_01: 7:24

Okay. So on day one, I haven't worked any hours yet. I still have the full 6,000 hours remaining.

SPEAKER_02: 7:29

Aaron Powell So you take$0,000 and you multiply it by$15 and you get$90,000.$90,000 immediately.

SPEAKER_01: 7:37

That is, I mean, that's a life-ruining amount of money for almost anyone, let alone a recent immigrant.

SPEAKER_02: 7:43

It is. It's a completely debilitating. But let's say you try to stick it out, you grit your teeth, you say, okay, I can do this. You work for a full year. That's 2,000 hours of hard labor. You are exhausted, you're burned out, you decide you just can't take it anymore. You still have 4,000 hours left on that contract.

SPEAKER_01: 8:03

Aaron Powell 4,000 times 15, I would still owe$60,000.

SPEAKER_02: 8:08

$60,000, exactly. Even after giving them a full year of your life, a full year of your skills, you're staring down a debt that is likely double or triple your annual disposable income.

SPEAKER_01: 8:18

Aaron Powell And let's keep in mind who we're talking about here. These are immigrants. They're often the primary breadwinners for their families back in the Philippines. They're trying to pay rent in New York City, which is one of the most expensive places on earth. They just do not have$60,000 sitting in a savings account.

SPEAKER_02: 8:33

They absolutely do not. And United Staffing knew that. The court later analyzed this very point and realized that for one of these nurses who is taking home about$900 a week, paying off a$90,000 penalty would take almost two years of working completely for free.

SPEAKER_01: 8:48

Two years.

SPEAKER_02: 8:49

Yes. Zero spending on food, zero spending on rent, just handing every single paycheck back to the boss who put you in this situation.

SPEAKER_01: 8:57

That's the literal definition of a trap. It's a financial wall so high you can't possibly climb over it.

SPEAKER_02: 9:03

It creates a situation where quitting is just not a realistic option. And that's where we start to veer into the legal territory of forced labor. If the penalty for leaving is complete financial annihilation, are you truly free to leave?

SPEAKER_01: 9:15

And it didn't even stop there. If the financial ruin wasn't enough of a deterrent, the contract had another way to lock them down. The non-compete clause.

SPEAKER_02: 9:23

So this clause, this was truly audacious. I mean, many listeners might be familiar with non-competees. Maybe you work in tech or sales, and your contract says you can't leave and go work for a direct competitor across the street for, say, six months.

SPEAKER_01: 9:36

Right. The idea is to protect trade secrets or client lists. Yeah. Something legitimate.

SPEAKER_02: 9:40

Exactly. And legally, those have to be reasonable. They have to be limited in time and in geography. You can't just ban someone from working in their chosen field forever. But let's look at what United Staffing's contract did.

SPEAKER_01: 9:53

Aaron Powell Okay. What were the terms on this one?

SPEAKER_02: 9:55

Aaron Ross Powell If a nurse breached the contract, they were banned from working as a nurse, or really in any capacity connected to a healthcare facility for a period of three full years.

SPEAKER_01: 10:07

Three years? I mean, that is a career killer. In a field like healthcare, if you're out of the game for three years, your skills atrophy, you lose your license certifications. You're basically starting from scratch.

SPEAKER_02: 10:19

It's devastating. And here's the real kicker. What do you think the geographic scope was? Was it Queens? Was it New York State?

SPEAKER_01: 10:27

From the way you're asking, I'm guessing it was bigger.

SPEAKER_02: 10:30

It was the entire continental United States.

SPEAKER_01: 10:33

You're kidding me. The whole country.

SPEAKER_02: 10:34

The whole country, from New York to California. So let's just combine these terms for a second. If you quit this terrible job, you owe up to$90,000. And you are legally forbidding from working as a nurse in California or Texas or Florida or anywhere else in America. You cannot practice your own profession to earn the money to pay off the massive debt they just handed you.

SPEAKER_01: 10:58

Aaron Powell It's a total blockade. It's effectively saying you belong to us or you belong to no one. There's no escape hatch.

SPEAKER_02: 11:05

It's absolutely suffocating. And if that wasn't enough fear, if the money and the career ban didn't keep you in line, they had the nuclear option, the immigration threat.

SPEAKER_01: 11:13

Aaron Powell I saw this in the notes. They actually wrote this directly into the contract.

SPEAKER_02: 11:16

They did, bold as brass. The contract explicitly stated that any breach would be reported to USCIS and IC. That's immigration and customs enforcement. Wow. And it spelled it out. It noted that such a report could lead to the termination of their green card and ultimately deportation.

SPEAKER_01: 11:32

Aaron Powell That's just chilling. They are weaponizing the immigration system against their own employees. They're saying, work for us on our terms, or we will have you thrown out of the country. You just sacrificed everything to get to.

SPEAKER_02: 11:43

It's the ultimate form of leverage over an immigrant worker. The fear of deportation is primal. It means losing everything you've built. It means shame. It means failure. And United Staffing put that gun on the table in the very first act, right there in the contract. Everyone was so excited to sign.

SPEAKER_01: 12:00

Aaron Powell I want to talk about the signing process itself for a minute, because I know there's always going to be someone listening who says, well, they signed it. They're adults, caveat, empt or buyer, beware. Sure. But the source material, it paints a picture of a process that wasn't exactly a fair negotiation between two equal parties.

SPEAKER_02: 12:19

Aaron Powell It was not a negotiation at all. I mean, think about the power dynamic here. On one side, you have United Staffing and Benjamin Santos. They've been in the recruitment business for over 20 years. They have lawyers, they have templates, they've done this thousands of times. And on the other side, you have individual nurses in the Philippines. They are likely nervous, they're excited, they're looking at a life-changing opportunity. And the sources say the entire recruitment process was incredibly rushed. Handlers, like a manager named Ferdinand Pascual, would tell them to sign immediately.

SPEAKER_01: 12:50

The classic high-pressure tactic: sign now or the offer disappears.

SPEAKER_02: 12:54

Exactly. Plaintiff Anna Myrene Espinosa testified that she didn't have time to consult anyone, not a lawyer, not even her family. She was told to sign and submit it right away. It's a high-pressure sales tactic, but it's being applied to your entire life.

SPEAKER_01: 13:09

Aaron Powell And there was a detail about the lawyer involved that really rubbed me the wrong way. A man named Felix Vinlewan.

SPEAKER_02: 13:15

Yes, Felix Vinlewan. He was the attorney for United Staffing. He was on their payroll. But from the nurse's perspective, he was the guy doing all the paperwork.

SPEAKER_01: 13:24

So they might have thought he was their lawyer.

SPEAKER_02: 13:26

It's a very common point of confusion in these situations. He was the one explaining the legal process to them. He was the one facilitating the visas. They relied on him.

SPEAKER_01: 13:34

But he was representing the company's interests, not theirs.

SPEAKER_02: 13:38

Correct. And crucially, the court noted he didn't get conflict waivers from the nurses. So you have the situation where the company's lawyer is telling the employees, don't worry, everything is standard, just sign here. While he's the one who's drafted a contract that's specifically designed to crush them if they ever try to leave.

SPEAKER_01: 13:56

It's a conflict of interest that you can see from space. It just sets the stage for everything that comes next. Yeah. So, okay, the nurses sign, they get on the plane, they land at JFK, they are ready to start their American dream. This brings us to segment two, the reality of the work.

SPEAKER_02: 14:14

Aaron Powell The bait and switch. Because as bad as the contract was on paper, the actual daily reality was somehow even worse.

SPEAKER_01: 14:22

Aaron Powell Let's talk about the money first. Because before they even started their real shifts, there was this whole scheme with the orientation wage.

SPEAKER_02: 14:29

Right. So when a nurse starts at a new facility, let's say Regal Heights or Meadowbrook Care Center, they have to undergo orientation, you know, learning the charting systems, the facility protocols. This is work. You are on the clock. It's a legal requirement.

SPEAKER_01: 14:42

Aaron Powell, but United Staffing had a different perspective on that.

SPEAKER_02: 14:45

A very different one. United staffing told the nurses that the facility's policy was not to pay for orientation. They claim the nursing homes wouldn't pay a dime for those first few weeks of training.

SPEAKER_01: 14:56

Which sounds immediately suspicious.

SPEAKER_02: 14:58

It is. But United Staffing positioned themselves as the good guys. They said, look, we know the facility won't pay you, so we are going to give you a benevolent allowance. And that allowance was$15 an hour.

SPEAKER_00: 15:11

$15 in New York City for a registered nurse.

SPEAKER_02: 15:16

Just to put that in perspective, their main contract, the one we've been talking about, promised prevailing wages. The Department of Labor's prevailing wage for an RN in Queens at that time was determined to be$32.21 an hour.

SPEAKER_01: 15:29

So they were paying them less than half of what they were legally owed from day one.

SPEAKER_02: 15:33

Less than half. And they framed it as a favor. Here's some pocket money to help you get by. In reality, it was just straight-up wage theft. They were skimming the difference. The court later found that the separate orientation agreement they had the nurses sign did not supersede the main contract's promise of prevailing wages.

SPEAKER_01: 15:50

So you're already starting in a financial hole. You're being underpaid from the jump. But then you actually hit the floor. And the working conditions, I mean, I read some of the deposition excerpts, and it just sounds chaotic.

SPEAKER_02: 16:01

Chaotic is a polite word. Dangerous is probably more accurate. One of the nurses testified about the patient ratios. Now, in a well-staffed hospital, a registered nurse might have four, maybe five patients at a time. In long-term care, maybe it's a bit higher, 10 or 12.

SPEAKER_01: 16:19

Okay, so what were these nurses dealing with?

SPEAKER_02: 16:21

One nurse detailed a regular shift of caring for 40 patients.

SPEAKER_01: 16:24

40, as in 4-0.

SPEAKER_02: 16:26

40 patients with only two AIDS to assist her.

SPEAKER_01: 16:30

That is impossible. I mean, from a logistical standpoint, how do you even give medications to 40 people in a single shift without making a mistake?

SPEAKER_02: 16:37

You barely can, and that's the point. It is a fundamentally unsafe environment. Any nurse listening to this right now is probably hyperventilating. A 40 to 1 ratio means you cannot provide safe care. You are constantly rushing. You are terrified you're going to miss a critical dose or miss a symptom that a patient is declining.

SPEAKER_01: 16:54

Aaron Powell And if you do make a mistake, it's your nursing license on the line, not the company's.

SPEAKER_02: 16:59

Exactly. And it wasn't just the sheer patient count, it was the scope creep. The nurses testified that on any given day they were forced to act as the charge nurse, the treatment nurse, and the medication pass nurse all at the same time.

SPEAKER_01: 17:11

Aaron Powell So doing the jobs of three different people.

SPEAKER_02: 17:14

Aaron Powell For the price of, well, less than one, as we've established, the psychological toll of that must have been massive.

SPEAKER_01: 17:19

Aaron Powell The testimony on that is heartbreaking. They talked about daily anxiety, insomnia, waking up in a cold sweat worrying about their patients. One nurse said she started to question her entire profession. She has spent years training to heal people, and here she was in a situation where she felt like she was just trying to keep them alive in a warehouse.

SPEAKER_02: 17:38

And then the world falls apart. COVID-19 arrives, New York City, spring of 2020, ground zero, and these nurses were on the front lines in the nursing homes, which we all know were hit incredibly hard.

SPEAKER_01: 17:51

And the sources mention plaintiff Anna Myrena Espinoza specifically in this context.

SPEAKER_02: 17:56

Yes. She was working in these conditions and she contracted COVID-19. Not once, but twice. Wow. She literally put her life on the line. And this is where the so-called benevolence of United Staffing completely evaporated. When she was out sick, isolating, suffering from a potentially deadly virus, she had no salary coming in.

SPEAKER_01: 18:17

No sick pay, nothing.

SPEAKER_02: 18:19

She testified that she had to beg United Staffing for pay. She was pleading for money just to survive while she was recovering from an illness. She almost certainly caught doing the dangerous job they sent her to do.

SPEAKER_01: 18:30

It paints such a stark picture. On the news, we were calling them healthcare heroes. We were banging pots and pans out the window for them at 7 p.m. But behind the scenes, they were begging their employer for a paycheck.

SPEAKER_02: 18:41

And even when they were healthy and working, the pay was often short. This is what the court called the validated hours issue.

SPEAKER_01: 18:47

Explain this scam to me.

SPEAKER_02: 18:48

Okay, so because the workload was so impossible, you know, remember the 40 patients' nurses would almost always have to stay late. If their shift was scheduled from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., they might have to stay until 5 or 6 TM just to finish their legally required charting. You can't just clock out and leave medical records blank.

SPEAKER_01: 19:06

Right. That's professional negligence or even patient abandonment. You have to finish the work.

SPEAKER_02: 19:10

Of course. But United Staffing had a policy. We only pay for hours that the facility validates. So if the nursing home administrator schedule said, we only authorize this nurse from seven to three, then United Staffing only paid for seven to three.

SPEAKER_01: 19:26

So the nurse works two or three hours of overtime completely for free?

SPEAKER_02: 19:30

Effectively, yes. United Staffing shifted all the risk and responsibility onto the nurse. Their defense was, hey, it's not our fault the facility won't pay, but legally, United Staffing is the employer. It is their direct obligation to pay for all hours an employee is suffered or permitted to work.

SPEAKER_01: 19:47

And on top of that, they were deducting meal breaks too.

SPEAKER_02: 19:49

Yes. The standard automatic 30-minute lunch deduction from their paychecks. But the nurses all testified they never took a lunch break. How could they? They had 40 patients, so they worked straight through lunch, but the computer system deducted the time from their pay anyway.

SPEAKER_01: 20:05

So let's just recap the situation here. You're being underpaid. You're overworked to the point of being dangerous to yourself and your patients. You're risking your life in a global pandemic. You're not getting paid for all your hours. And if you dare to complain or try to quit, you owe$90,000 and the boss threatens to call Icy.

SPEAKER_02: 20:24

It's a pressure cooker. It's just a perfect storm of exploitation. And eventually the lid blew off. The nurses decided that the risk of fighting back was better than the certainty of living in that misery.

SPEAKER_01: 20:34

Which brings us to segment three, the counterclaim. Or the Empire Strikes Back.

SPEAKER_02: 20:39

Indeed. The nurses finally got legal help and they filed a class action lawsuit. They alleged violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, breach of contract for the unpaid wages, and fraud. They went to federal court and said, this entire system is illegal.

SPEAKER_01: 20:53

Now, in a normal world, a company facing these kinds of allegations might look at this and say, okay, maybe we pushed it too far. Let's settle. Let's make this go away quietly.

SPEAKER_02: 21:03

Aaron Ross Powell That is what a risk-averse or maybe a rational company might do. United Staffing and Benjamin Santos did the exact opposite. They went on the offensive. They denied all wrongdoing, and then they sued the nurses back.

SPEAKER_01: 21:16

They countersued their own employees.

SPEAKER_02: 21:17

They filed a formal counterclaim. They argued, hey, you signed a contract, you quit early, you are in breach, you owe us the money. They explicitly asked the federal court to enforce the liquidated damages clause. They wanted a judgment saying these nurses had to pay the$60,000, the$90,000 plus interest.

SPEAKER_01: 21:36

The audacity of that is just staggering. They're literally trying to use the American court system to enforce the very contractual term that the nurses are arguing constitutes human trafficking.

SPEAKER_02: 21:46

It's an incredible power move. It's a way of saying we aren't afraid of the law. We believe the law is on our side. But they didn't stop at the courtroom. They took the fight directly to their other employees, the ones still working for them. This is the opt-out email incident.

SPEAKER_01: 22:02

This part of the story is just it feels like something out of a movie, like a classic villain move.

SPEAKER_02: 22:10

It really does. So when a class action lawsuit is certified, the court identifies a class. In this case, it was basically every other Nurse who worked under the same contract, they're all automatically part of a lawsuit unless they actively choose to opt out.

SPEAKER_01: 22:25

Right. And usually the court controls all communication with the class members to make sure no one is being intimidated or misled.

SPEAKER_02: 22:32

Exactly. But United Staffing went rogue. They sent an unauthorized email directly to all of their current employees, people who are currently working for them, currently relying on them for their paychecks and their visa status.

SPEAKER_01: 22:43

What did the MSA?

SPEAKER_02: 22:44

It was a very thinly veiled warning. It informed all the nurses that United Staffing had filed counterclaims against the original plaintiffs who sued. It essentially said, just so you know, those people who sued us, we are coming after them for tens of thousands of dollars in damages.

SPEAKER_01: 22:59

The subtext being, and if you don't opt out of this lawsuit, we will come after you too.

SPEAKER_02: 23:04

It wasn't even subtext. The court later found it to be an implicit threat. Opt out, or you will face our wrath. And it gets even worse. The email actually included a script.

SPEAKER_01: 23:14

A script. What do you mean, a script?

SPEAKER_02: 23:16

A pre-written response for the nurses to copy, paste, and send back to the lawyers. It had lines like, I was not forced to work for United Staffing, and I signed my contract voluntarily. They were trying to coerce their own employees into creating evidence for the company's defense.

SPEAKER_01: 23:32

That's that feels like it's bordering on obstruction of justice, or the very least, serious witness tampering.

SPEAKER_02: 23:37

The court was absolutely furious about it. The judge's order noted that this action interfered with the prop administration of justice, but it gives you a real window into the mindset of the defendants. They felt they owned these workers so completely that they felt entitled to dictate what they said, even in a federal lawsuit.

SPEAKER_01: 23:57

Well, luckily for the nurses, the federal judge was not intimidated. And this brings us to segment four, the court's analysis. The real deep dive into the law.

SPEAKER_02: 24:07

This is where the rubber meets the road. The judge had to take this contract apart piece by piece and decide if any of it was legally enforceable.

SPEAKER_01: 24:15

Okay, let's start with the big one: the money. The liquidated damages clause. The judge had to decide if this was a valid way to calculate damages or if it was an illegal penalty.

SPEAKER_02: 24:25

And this is a really crucial legal distinction. Liquidated damages are a real thing. They are allowed in contracts under certain circumstances.

SPEAKER_01: 24:31

Can you give us an example of a valid one?

SPEAKER_02: 24:33

Sure. Let's say you hire a contractor to build a new retail store, and you have a grand opening set for June 1st. You can't know exactly how much money you'll lose if they're late. So you write into the contract for every day you are late, you owe us$1,000. That's seen as a reasonable estimate of a loss that's otherwise difficult to calculate.

SPEAKER_01: 24:52

Okay, that makes sense. It simplifies things for everyone.

SPEAKER_02: 24:54

Right. But a penalty is different. A penalty is just about punishment. It's saying, if you're late, you owe me a million dollars, an amount totally disconnected from any real harm. Public policy hates penalties in contracts because they're coercive. They are designed to terrorize someone into performing, not to actually compensate for a loss.

SPEAKER_01: 25:15

So the court applied this test to the$90,000 clause in the nurse's contract.

SPEAKER_02: 25:20

Yes. And they found it was, and I quote, grossly disproportionate to any actual damages. The court used what they called the math of ruin.

SPEAKER_01: 25:29

The math of ruin. That sounds like a heavy metal album, but I assume it's a financial calculation.

SPEAKER_02: 25:33

It is. The court looked at plaintiff Magtoll's actual payroll stubs. She was netting about$924 a week. The court then calculated that to pay off the$90,000 penalty, she would have to work for 97 straight weeks.

SPEAKER_01: 25:47

That's almost two full years.

SPEAKER_02: 25:49

Two years of handing over 100% of her paycheck. No money for rent in New York City, no money for food. The court recognized that this creates a form of servitude. You are working solely to pay a debt to your employer that you can never realistically clear.

SPEAKER_01: 26:05

Aaron Powell Now United Staffing tried to defend the number, right? Yeah. They said, hey, recruiting these nurses from overseas is expensive. We have costs.

SPEAKER_02: 26:11

Aaron Ross Powell They did. And that's the other part of the legal test. Are the actual damages difficult to calculate? United Staffing's lawyers argued, oh, it's so mysterious, the cost of flights and visas and legal fees.

SPEAKER_01: 26:22

Is it really that mysterious?

SPEAKER_02: 26:24

No. The court basically laughed that argument out of the room. The judge wrote that United Staffing has been doing this for 20 years. They know exactly what a plane ticket from Manila to New York costs. They know exactly what the Visa application fee is. These are fixed known costs. They aren't mysterious at all.

SPEAKER_01: 26:42

Aaron Powell So because the actual costs were known and easy to calculate, and the$90,000 figure was completely disconnected from the reality of those costs, it has to be a penalty.

SPEAKER_02: 26:52

Exactly. If your real provable recruitment cost is, say,$5,000, you cannot legally charge a$90,000 penalty. That's punishment, not compensation. And therefore, the court ruled the entire clause is unenforceable. It is legally void.

SPEAKER_01: 27:07

Okay, so what about the other big one, the noncompete, the nationwide ban on working as a nurse?

SPEAKER_02: 27:11

Aaron Powell New York courts are very, very strict on noncompetes. They ask a few simple questions. Is it reasonable in time and area? Is it necessary to protect a legitimate interest of the employer? And is it harmful to the public?

SPEAKER_01: 27:22

And I'm guessing this one failed all of those tests.

SPEAKER_02: 27:25

Spectacularly. First, the court used what's sometimes called the janitor test. The wording of the noncompete was so broad it banned the nurses from working in any capacity for a competitor. The court noted that, read literally, Magtalls couldn't even get a job as a janitor at another hospital.

SPEAKER_01: 27:44

Which is just absurd. United Staffing doesn't have a legitimate business interest in preventing a highly skilled nurse from mopping floors somewhere else.

SPEAKER_02: 27:51

Exactly. Second, the geography. United Staffing operates in New York and on Long Island. They have no business in California or Ohio, but they banned the nurses from the entire USA. The court called that geographic overreach and said it proves the clause wasn't about protection, it was purely about punishment.

SPEAKER_01: 28:09

And what about the public interest part?

SPEAKER_02: 28:11

This was really important, especially given the timing. The court said, look, we are in the middle of a national health care shortage. We are emerging from a pandemic. Banning qualified licensed nurses from working serves no one. It actively hurts the general public. So the non-compete. Also declared legally void and unenforceable.

SPEAKER_01: 28:28

So the two main chains of the contract are broken. But the court went even further. And this is the part that really makes this case historic. Segment five. The TVPA ruling, forced labor.

SPEAKER_02: 28:40

This is the heavy hitter. The plaintiffs claimed that the contract didn't just breach labor laws, it violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. And United Staffing's defense was how? We didn't lock them in a room, they could walk away anytime.

SPEAKER_01: 28:52

They just had to pay us$90,000 first.

SPEAKER_02: 28:55

Right. But the TVPA has evolved. The law now recognizes that force can come in many forms. It explicitly covers subtle, nonviolent threats. The legal standard is this. Would a reasonable person with the same background as the victim be compelled to keep working to avoid serious harm?

SPEAKER_01: 29:13

And the court decided that a$90,000 debt absolutely qualifies as serious harm.

SPEAKER_02: 29:18

Yes. The court ruled that the contract itself was the weapon. The mere threat of enforcing that penalty constitutes a threat of serious financial harm under the statute.

SPEAKER_01: 29:27

It makes perfect sense when you think about it. For these nurses,$90,000 isn't just a bill they can't pay. It's bankruptcy. It's financial ruin. It's the end of their American dream and maybe their family's financial stability back home.

SPEAKER_02: 29:40

Exactly. The nurses testified that they stayed in that awful, unsafe job despite the anxiety, despite the 40 patients, because they were terrified of the debt. The court said, that is coercion. That is involuntary servitude.

SPEAKER_01: 29:53

So the court confirmed it. You can traffic people using a PDF. You don't need physical chains.

SPEAKER_02: 29:58

Forced labor by contract. That's essentially the verdict. And the court also found that the defendants acted with scienter.

SPEAKER_01: 30:05

Scienter, that's a new legal term for me. What does that mean?

SPEAKER_02: 30:08

It's a legal term that means intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. It means this wasn't an accident. United staffing drafted the contract. They knew the penalty was enormous. They intended for it to scare the nurses into staying. You can't turn around and say, oops, I didn't realize my terrifying contract was so terrifying.

SPEAKER_01: 30:25

And because they had that intent, because they knew what they were doing, the court did something that is actually quite rare. They went after the boss himself.

SPEAKER_02: 30:33

They pierced the corporate veil. Usually, if you sue a company, the owner is personally protected by the corporate structure. That's the whole point of having an Inc. or an LLC. But in rare cases, courts can disregard that.

SPEAKER_01: 30:46

And why do they do it here?

SPEAKER_02: 30:48

Because Benjamin Santos wasn't some distant shareholder. He was the sole owner. He was the CEO. He personally signed the employment contracts. The court found he was the architect of the entire scheme. And so the court ruled he could not hide behind the corporation. He is personally liable for the damages.

SPEAKER_01: 31:05

That is a massive signal to other business owners out there. You can't just incorporate your way out of human rights violations.

SPEAKER_02: 31:11

Precisely. Accountability landed right at the top on his shoulders.

SPEAKER_01: 31:14

Now before we wrap this all up, we have to address the one thread that didn't get fully tied up in this particular court order. Segment six. The unresolved case of being Espinosa.

SPEAKER_02: 31:26

Right. Anna Mervine Ming Espinosa, she was the physical therapy aide, not a nurse. And her case was slightly different. Her main claim that was left unresolved revolved around recruitment fees.

SPEAKER_01: 31:38

She paid United Staffing directly for the recruitment process, right?

SPEAKER_02: 31:42

Yes. She paid them a total of$7,532. Now, there are federal regulations, specifically 20 CFR sections 656.21, that say an employer must pay for the costs associated with a labor certification. You cannot legally charge the employee for their own visa labor certification. It's considered a cost of doing business for the employer.

SPEAKER_01: 32:05

So she said that$7,000 was for my visa process, and that's illegal, so give it back.

SPEAKER_02: 32:09

Aaron Powell That's the essence of her claim. But the defendants argued, no, no, that money wasn't for the labor certification specifically. It was for other things.

SPEAKER_00: 32:17

What kind of other things?

SPEAKER_02: 32:17

Aaron Powell They claimed it was for her own personal legal representation or for other application fees that aren't covered by that specific ban. And here's where the paper trail problem comes in.

SPEAKER_01: 32:26

The receipts were unclear.

SPEAKER_02: 32:27

Very unclear. The receipts said things like lawyers' fees or just application. It wasn't clear which application or whose lawyer. Because the documents were so ambiguous, the judge couldn't decide this issue on summary judgment.

SPEAKER_01: 32:41

And summary judgment is when the judge says, the facts are so clear-cut here, we don't even need a trial to decide this.

SPEAKER_02: 32:47

Exactly. For the nurses' contracts, the terms were written in plain English and the facts were that clear. But for Bing's$7,000, the judge basically said, there's a genuine dispute of fact here. A jury needs to look at these messy receipts and hear testimony to decide what this money was actually for. So that specific claim was allowed to move forward to a trial.

SPEAKER_01: 33:09

It really shows that the court was being incredibly thorough. They didn't just rubber stamp a guilty verdict on everything. They looked at the evidence for each individual claim.

SPEAKER_02: 33:17

Well, let's make no mistake, for the main issue, the contracts, the$90,000 penalty, the non-competes, it was a total and complete wipeout for the defense.

SPEAKER_01: 33:25

Okay, let's head to the outro and summarize this massive victory.

SPEAKER_02: 33:29

It really is a sweeping win for the nurses. The court issued what's called a declaratory judgment. That means they officially declared on the record. The liquidated damages clause is unenforceable, the non-compete clause is unenforceable.

SPEAKER_01: 33:42

They're dead letters. They have no legal power.

SPEAKER_02: 33:45

And then they issued a permanent injunction. That means United Staffing is banned forever from ever trying to enforce those clauses against these nurses or any member of the class. They can't sue them, they can't send them a bill, they can't demand payment. It's over.

SPEAKER_01: 34:00

And on top of that, they are now officially liable for the TVPA violations and for the wage theft.

SPEAKER_02: 34:06

Yes. The court said, You breached your own contract by not paying prevailing wages during orientation, and you violated federal trafficking laws by using that same contract as a weapon of coercion. It validates everything these nurses fought for.

SPEAKER_01: 34:20

So why does this matter to the average listener? You know, maybe you're not a nurse, maybe you're not an immigrant. Why should you care about this case?

SPEAKER_02: 34:26

It matters because this business model is spreading. We are seeing it in other industries, in tech, in trucking, even in retail. They have a new name for them now. T R A Ps, which stands for training repayment agreement provisions.

SPEAKER_01: 34:40

Aaron Powell Right. The old, we paid to train you, so you owe us$20,000 if you quit in the first two years.

SPEAKER_02: 34:46

Exactly. It is a new way to recreate indentured servitude in the modern American economy. This ruling sends up a huge flair. It says to employers everywhere. Just because you got a desperate person to sign a contract doesn't make it legal. If the terms are unconscionable, if they're designed to coerce rather than compensate, the courts can and will step in.

SPEAKER_01: 35:07

Freedom of contract isn't the same thing as freedom to enslave.

SPEAKER_02: 35:11

That is the lesson of this case put perfectly.

SPEAKER_01: 35:13

I want to leave everyone with one final thought, and it goes back to that email, the opt-out threat that the company sent.

SPEAKER_02: 35:18

The one they sent to their current employees during the lawsuit?

SPEAKER_01: 35:21

Yeah. I mean, just think about that for a second. United staffing was in the middle of a federal lawsuit. They had expensive lawyers on retainer, they knew a federal judge was watching their every single move, and they still felt comfortable enough to implicitly threaten their own employees with countersuits.

SPEAKER_02: 35:37

It speaks to a deep structural sense of impunity. They truly believed they were untouchable and that these workers were their property.

SPEAKER_01: 35:45

So my question is, if they are willing to do that when the spotlight is blindingly bright on them, what are they doing when the lights are off? What kind of pressure is happening every day when there is no lawsuit?

SPEAKER_02: 35:56

And that's the scary question, isn't it? How many other standard contracts are sitting in filing cabinets right now, holding workers in place with the silent, unspoken threat of financial ruin?

SPEAKER_01: 36:06

It's a huge win. But it's also a reminder that this battle is happening all around us, often in plain sight. That is it for this deep dive into Magtool's United Staffing.

SPEAKER_02: 36:17

Knowledge is power. Know your rights and look at the fine print.

SPEAKER_01: 36:21

We will see you next time.