H-2A visa program; Illegal recruitment fees; 20 CFR § 655.135(j); Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA); Forced labor; 18 USC § 1589; Fair Labor Standards Act; Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act; MCL 408.411; Michigan Human Trafficking Victims Compensation Act (MHTVCA); MCL 752.981; Punitive damages; Due process; BMW of N Am, Inc v Gore; State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Campbell; Mistrial; FRE 401; FRE 403; Statute of limitations defense; Waiver; Forum non conveniens; Cumulative error

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that defendants were not entitled to relief from the punitive damages award, the denial of a mistrial, the exclusion of proposed witness testimony, the rejection of statute-of-limitations defenses, or the denial of forum non conveniens dismissal. Plaintiffs were Guatemalan H-2A workers who sued after defendants allegedly charged illegal recruitment fees, subjected them to poor living conditions, underpaid them, restricted their freedom, confiscated documents, and threatened deportation. A jury found defendants liable on almost all claims and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the court first held that the punitive damages award comported with due process. It reasoned that a TVPRA claim “inherently carries with it a degree of reprehensibility,” and the evidence showed repeated, intentional exploitation of financially vulnerable workers, including threats, document confiscation, squalid housing, and delayed medical care. The court also held that the punitive-to-compensatory ratio was “rather modest” and that the TVPRA and H-2A penalties gave defendants “fair notice.” The court next held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a mistrial after one plaintiff testified that his ex-partner’s presence in court caused him distress because the comments were “isolated,” the district court gave a “specific and unequivocal” curative instruction, and the verdict did not show incurable prejudice. It also upheld exclusion of proposed worker witnesses who had “no direct or indirect knowledge” of defendants’ treatment of plaintiffs. The court rejected the limitations arguments because some claims were not actually brought and defendants waived the MHTVCA limitations defense. Finally, it held that defendants did not show Guatemala was an adequate alternative forum because “unsupported, conclusory statements” were insufficient. Affirmed.