Global's Response to the Court Order issued March 27, 2008, by the United States District Court in Yakima, Washington, in the case of Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, case number CV-05-3061.

Global is very pleased to have been vindicated today by the Court, which found no evidence to support the workers' claims of racial discrimination. The Court held: "there was no evidence that Global favored non-Hispanic local workers in the hiring and firing process... the Court reviewed this evidence and concludes that race was not a motivating or substantial factor in the hiring and firing decisions of the Global Defendants." The Court, therefore, dismissed all claims of racial discrimination against the Grower Defendants based on the alleged discriminatory acts of Global. Notwithstanding its own findings, however, the Court declined to disturb the previous jury verdict that found Global liable for racial discrimination and assessed punitive damages arising there from.

For two years, Global has defended itself against the loud and well orchestrated voices of legal services organizations and other ideologues who have tried to scandalize and limit the rights of employers to lawfully terminate poorly performing workers with these baseless claims of racial discrimination. If these organizations have their way, and force employers to keep unproductive workers, it will ultimately eliminate work opportunities for productive workers and drive these jobs over-seas.

Global was disappointed that the Court simply excused the admittedly deliberate and calculated failure of the workers' attorneys to issue the mandatory opt-out notices to absent class members, denying them their constitutional right to written notice and an opportunity to decline to participate in this litigation.

Further, the Court refused to disturb the jury's award of damages for emotional distress caused by the alleged racial discrimination, despite the Court's own finding that no such discrimination occurred to begin with. In finding that Plaintiffs met their burden to prove severe emotional distress, the Court cited the testimony of one of the class representatives who applied for a job with Global, but was not called to report for work. Specifically, this worker testified that: "not being called to work did not feel good." Remarkably, this lone statement was accepted by the Court as evidence of severe emotional distress.

Lastly, Global was also surprised to read that despite the class representatives' failure to prove they were legally permitted to work in this country, rather than just being legally in the country, the Court nevertheless reaffirmed the award in their favor.

This ruling pertains primarily to the three class representatives and their eligibility for damages. The Court did however hold that "any class member that seeks to prove damages at a later proceeding will have to show that they are qualified to work. An illegal alien is not qualified to work under the clearance order." Global is pleased that the Court is upholding the rule of law in this matter.

Global wishes to congratulate the two Grower Defendants on being wholly vindicated on the discrimination claim. Global is evaluating and considering the possibility of an appeal from these rulings.