David, et al. v. Signal International LLC
Popular Name:
David, et al. v. Signal International LLCAgenda Area(s):
Court where filed:
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Date Filed:
03/10/2008
Status:
Ongoing
Plaintiffs:
Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, and Dhananjaya Kechuru, on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, and Sabulal Vijayan, Krishnan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, and Thanasekar Chellappan
Defendants:
Signal International LLC, Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Indo-Ameri Soft L.L.C., Kurella Rao, J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (a/k/a Medtech Consultants)
Case Related Items





The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a class action suit on behalf of hundreds of guest workers from India who were lured by false promises of permanent U.S. residency and who each paid tens of thousands of dollars to obtain temporary jobs at Gulf Coast shipyards only to find themselves forced into involuntary servitude and living in overcrowded, guarded labor camps.
The lawsuit charges that Signal International LLC and a network of recruiters and labor brokers engineered a scheme to defraud the workers and force them to work against their will in Signal facilities in Pascagoula, Miss., and Orange, Texas.
Several of the workers were illegally detained by company security guards during a pre-dawn raid of their quarters after they began organizing other workers to complain about the abuses.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the complaint claims defendants engaged in forced labor, human trafficking, fraud, racketeering and civil rights violations. Signal is a marine and fabrication company with shipyards in Mississippi and Texas. It is a subcontractor for several major multi-national companies.
The case has resulted in precedent-setting decisions that will benefit immigrant workers, including one that prohibited the defendants from inquiring about the immigration status of the Signal workers. The court said such inquiries would have “an intimidating effect on an employee's willingness to assert his workplace rights.”
The court also has denied every motion to dismiss the case, noting that without this litigation “there is no reason to believe that the systemic victimization alleged in this case would not have continued indefinitely.”