Labor

Running a farm business is no small job. Between planting, harvesting, caring for livestock, and tracking markets, it’s easy to see why labor and employment laws might not be at the top of your list. But the reality is this: every agricultural operation, big or small, needs to pay attention to these rules. Ignoring them can create major headaches down the road.

We often write about labor and employment laws in agriculture, but we don’t always take the time to talk about the why. Why should farm employers care about compliance? The obvious answer is that failing to follow the law can lead to fines, penalties, or even criminal consequences. But there is another side to it: compliance is also about smart risk management. Too often, that part of the conversation gets overlooked.

In this post, we will dig into why labor and employment compliance matters for every farm employer, no matter the size of your operation, the number of workers you hire, or whether your team is made up of family, neighbors, or seasonal help. We will also be using this post to kick off a new series of posts, where we will break down labor and employment laws into bite-sized, practical pieces. The goal is to help Ohio producers understand their obligations and share best practices that can reduce risks and strengthen their businesses.

Compliance = Risk Management
As we have mentioned before, ignoring labor and employment laws can bring direct legal consequences. But there is another side to compliance that deserves attention: risk management.

Fun fact: not every federal or state labor law applies to every employer. Many laws have size thresholds or exceptions/exemptions for certain types of employers. For example, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) only applies to employers with 15 or more employees. Similarly, Ohio’s anti-discrimination law generally applies to employers with four or more employees.

So, what about a small farm with three or fewer workers? Technically, some of these anti-discrimination rules do not apply. But that does not mean you are off the hook completely. A job applicant or employee who feels they were treated unfairly because of their race, sex, age, disability, religion, national origin, or military status can still file a complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Even if the farm is ultimately found not liable, the process of defending against a claim costs time, money, and stress. And in a close-knit farming community, just the perception of discrimination can damage relationships with workers, customers, and neighbors.

There is also the bigger challenge many producers face: finding and keeping a reliable workforce. Workers are more likely to stay, and return season after season, when they feel respected, treated fairly, and confident that their employer is following good practices. Compliance is not just about avoiding penalties; it’s about building a safe, fair workplace that encourages loyalty and productivity.

We have focused here on discrimination laws as an example, but the same principle applies across the board. Many labor laws including wage and hour rules, harassment policies, and safety standards may or may not apply to a particular farm depending on its size or structure. Still, choosing to follow these standards can pay off. Voluntarily adopting recognized best practices provides a layer of protection if disputes arise, shows foresight if laws change, and helps resolve workplace issues before they turn into legal claims.

At the end of the day, following labor and employment laws, even when they do not technically apply, is a smart risk management strategy. It helps farms keep good workers, avoid conflicts, and maintain their reputation as fair, responsible employers. And those benefits can be just as valuable as steering clear of legal penalties.

“Employing” Family Members
As we mentioned earlier, this post kicks off a new blog series for Ohio farm employers on labor and employment law. Our goal is to clear up misconceptions, highlight common assumptions, and break down technicalities in the law so that employers can re-evaluate their practices, stay compliant, and avoid costly headaches.

Our first topic: employing family members.

Many Ohio farms are family-owned and operated, which means it is common to see relatives working side by side. Depending on who you ask, that can be a wonderful experience - or a recipe for disaster. What farmers need to understand, though, is that in most cases, family members are still considered employees.

Yes, there are exceptions depending on the structure of the business, and some family members may be exempt from certain wage or tax requirements. But generally speaking, employing family does not mean you are off the hook for employment law compliance. For example, in Ohio, even one employee triggers the requirement to carry workers’ compensation coverage. Federally, employers typically need to issue a W-2 to family employees. Blood or marriage ties do not erase those obligations.

So, does every farm follow these rules to the letter? Realistically, no. Many well-intentioned family operations are not fully compliant with all applicable labor and employment laws. Why? Two main reasons:

1. Limited enforcement. Governmental agencies responsible for enforcing labor and employment laws do not have the resources to audit or investigate every farm. But if you “win” the audit lottery, you will be expected to demonstrate compliance.
2. Few complaints. Issues often do not come to light unless a worker files a lawsuit or complaint. And while many assume a family member would never sue, that is not a guarantee. Anyone who has seen family disagreements knows how quickly emotions can escalate.

That is why it is risky to assume family employees are somehow “different.” A dispute between relatives can turn into a legal problem just like any other workplace conflict. Treating family workers with the same seriousness as non-family employees is the best way to protect your farm, your business, and yes - even your family relationships.    

Conclusion
In truth, labor and employment compliance might never become an issue on your farm. But as the old saying goes, “never say never.” Following these laws is not just about avoiding penalties – it is also a smart risk management strategy. Compliance can help prevent or quickly resolve disputes that drain time, energy, and already thin margins. Just as importantly, it brings peace of mind, clarity, and stability – intangibles that can be some of your farm’s most valuable assets.

Federal lawmakers have once again sparked debate over increasing the federal minimum wage, which has remained at $7.25 per hour since 2009. While many farmworkers are exempt from the federal minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), a potential increase could still create significant ripple effects throughout the agricultural sector.

Earlier this month, Senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) introduced the Higher Wages for American Workers Act, a bipartisan proposal that would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour and index future increases to inflation.

Although agricultural employers in Ohio are generally exempt from federal minimum wage requirements, the reemergence of federal wage legislation presents a timely opportunity to revisit those exemptions and clarify what minimum wage obligations may apply to farm employers under both federal and state law.

Federal Agricultural Exemptions
Under the FLSA, agricultural employers are not required to pay the federal minimum wage to certain employees if one or more of the following conditions apply:

1. Small Farm Exemption: The employer did not use more than 500 man-days of agricultural labor in any calendar quarter of the previous year.
2. Family Member Exemption: The employee is the parent, spouse, child, or another immediate family member of the employer.
3. Hand-Harvest Laborer Exemption: The employee:
   • is employed as a hand-harvest laborer,
   • is paid on a piece-rate basis,
   • commutes daily from their permanent residence, and
   • was employed in agriculture for fewer than 13 weeks during the previous calendar year.
4. Youth Hand-Harvest Exemption: The employee is:
   • 16 years old or younger,
   • employed as a hand-harvest laborer,
   • paid on a piece-rate basis,
   • working on the same farm as their parent or legal guardian, and
   • receiving the same piece-rate wage as employees over age 16.
5. Range Production Exemption: The employee is engaged in the range production of livestock.

Understanding the 500 Man-Days Threshold
The “man-day” exemption is intended to relieve small or family-operated farms from federal minimum wage requirements. A “man-day” is any day in which an employee performs at least one hour of agricultural labor. The total number of hours worked is irrelevant, working just one hour still constitutes a full man-day.

To determine whether an employer meets the exemption, all workers across all operations owned or managed by the same farmer must be included in the calculation. For example, if one employee works a single hour on Monday and two others work an hour each on Tuesday, the farm accumulates three man-days across those two days. The FLSA sets the threshold at 500 man-days per calendar quarter, which is roughly equal to employing seven employees for five days a week over a 13-week quarter. Importantly, all categories of labor—full-time, part-time, seasonal, and temporary—count toward the total.

Family Member Exemption Clarified
Agricultural employers are not required to pay the federal minimum wage to certain immediate family members engaged in agricultural labor. The Department of Labor defines "immediate family" for this purpose to include parents, spouses, children, stepchildren, stepparents, foster children, and foster parents.

However, more distant relatives, such as siblings, cousins, nieces, nephews, and in-laws—do not qualify for the exemption, even if they live in the same household. These individuals must be treated as regular employees and may be subject to minimum wage and hour requirements.

State Minimum Wage Considerations
In addition to federal law, employers must comply with state wage laws. When state and federal minimum wage laws conflict, employers must follow the law that is more protective of the employee, typically, the law with the higher minimum wage.

In Ohio, the state minimum wage is higher than the federal rate, and most employers are required to pay the state minimum. However, Ohio law includes exemptions that mirror federal law and allows certain agricultural employers to pay less than the state minimum wage if they qualify under those exemptions.

This alignment between state and federal law means that many Ohio farm employers remain exempt from both wage requirements—especially small farms and family-run operations. But this is not the case in all states. For example, California and Washington require that all agricultural workers be paid the state minimum wage, regardless of whether they qualify for a federal exemption.

Who is Considered an Agricultural Employee?
Both federal and Ohio law define “agriculture” broadly to include a wide range of farming activities. The legal definition encompasses the cultivation and tillage of soil, dairying, growing and harvesting of agricultural or horticultural commodities, and the raising of livestock, bees, fur-bearing animals, or poultry. It also includes related tasks performed by a farmer or on a farm in connection with these activities, such as preparing goods for market or transporting them to storage or distribution.

This definition divides agricultural work into two main categories:

• Primary agriculture, which includes traditional farming activities like planting, growing, and harvesting crops or raising livestock.
• Secondary agriculture, which covers work that supports or is incidental to primary agriculture—for example, servicing equipment used on the farm or applying pesticides via aircraft.

Employees engaged in either primary or secondary agricultural activities are generally classified as agricultural employees and may fall within the FLSA exemptions described above.

Agritourism and Value-Added Activities: A Different Category
Classification becomes more complicated when farm operations expand beyond traditional agriculture by engaging in agritourism or producing value-added products.

Employees who work in agritourism, such as operating a corn maze, staffing a farm store, managing event rentals, or leading educational tours, are typically not considered agricultural employees under federal or Ohio law. Because their work is commercial or recreational rather than agricultural in nature, they do not qualify for agricultural labor exemptions and are therefore entitled to full wage and hour protections, including minimum wage and overtime.

Similarly, employees involved in processing agricultural products may also fall outside the scope of the agricultural exemption, depending on the nature and extent of the processing. These workers may be treated as employees in a manufacturing or commercial enterprise and must be compensated accordingly.

Conclusion. 
While federal and Ohio laws provide specific exemptions from minimum wage requirements for agricultural employers, the application of these exemptions depends on several nuanced factors—including the nature of the work performed, the size and structure of the farming operation, and the relationship between the employer and employee. As farms continue to diversify through agritourism and value-added ventures, employers must be mindful that not all workers will qualify for agricultural exemptions. Understanding the distinction between agricultural and non-agricultural labor is essential to ensuring compliance with both federal and state wage laws and avoiding potential liability. As legislative efforts to raise the federal minimum wage continue, now is an opportune time for agricultural employers to review their labor practices and clarify their wage obligations under the law.

On April 9, 2025, the Ohio House of Representatives passed its version of the state’s biennial budget, also known as House Bill 96, which introduces substantial revisions to Ohio’s pesticide application laws. These updates aim to bring the state into closer alignment with current federal regulations and carry significant implications—particularly for family farms that involve youth workers. As the school year ends and more minors begin working regularly on farms, the timing of these proposed changes raises concerns about how they may limit the roles young people can legally perform—especially when it comes to pesticide-related tasks. 

Changes on the Horizon?
One of the most notable changes is the proposed restriction that only licensed commercial or private pesticide applicators may “use” Restricted Use Pesticides (“RUPs”). This would eliminate the previous allowance for trained service persons, immediate family members, or employees to apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator.

Additionally, House Bill 96 expands the definition of “use” of RUPs to include not only the act of application but also:

1. Pre-application activities such as mixing and loading;
2. The application itself, performed by a licensed commercial or private applicator;
3. Other pesticide-related tasks, including transporting or storing opened containers, cleaning equipment, and disposing of leftover pesticides, spray mixtures, rinse water, containers, or any materials containing pesticides.

The bill makes clear that no individual may use RUPs unless they are properly licensed under Ohio law, reinforcing the importance of formal certification for anyone involved in pesticide handling.

What Does this Mean for Youth on the Farm?
Under current Ohio law, immediate family members—including minors—are permitted to apply RUPs as long as they are under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator. For years, agricultural families have relied on this exemption to allow youth to assist with farm duties involving pesticide use. However, the proposed changes in House Bill 96 would eliminate this exception by requiring that anyone handling RUPs be individually licensed. Because Ohio law mandates that pesticide applicators be at least 18 years old, minors would no longer be permitted to perform any pesticide-related tasks, even under direct supervision. Of course, this provision is not just geared toward youth on the farm—it also affects employees and trained service persons who previously operated under a licensed applicator’s supervision. If the proposed changes go through, a violation of the law could result in significant civil penalties. 

Given the proposed changes in House Bill 96, it’s an appropriate time to take a broader look at the full range of youth labor regulations that apply to farm work. While pesticide use is just one area impacted by legal restrictions, there are numerous federal and state laws that govern what tasks minors can perform, what equipment they can operate, and how many hours they can legally work—especially during the school year versus summer months. These rules can vary based on the age of the minor and their relationship to the farm owner. With regulatory changes potentially tightening in one area, it’s essential for farm families and employers to ensure they are in compliance across the board to avoid penalties and ensure safe, lawful participation of youth in agricultural work. Read more about employing youth on the farm here. 

Next Steps
Farm families and employers should begin preparing for the upcoming changes to Ohio’s pesticide rules. While these changes aren't law yet—they won’t take effect until the Governor signs the bill—they are needed to align Ohio’s regulations with federal law. If Ohio wants to keep its authority to enforce the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA"), these updates are a forgone conclusion.

To review the specific pesticide-related provisions in House Bill 96, begin on page 903 of the bill text. Alternatively, for an overview of the proposed budget and potential changes, you can consult the summary prepared by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission.

We are back with another edition of the Ag Law Harvest, where we bring you rulings, laws, and regulations that affect the agricultural industry. This month's Ag Law Harvest is bringing the heat with H-2A wage rule injunctions, cultivated meat ban challenges, sales and use tax issues, and an emergency order from the EPA. 

Federal Judge in Georgia Blocks H-2A Wage Rule for Named Plaintiffs. A Georgia federal judge has limited the U.S. Department of Labor's enforcement of a rule titled "Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States" (the “Final Rule”). This rule, challenged by 17 states led by Kansas and Georgia, as well as by Miles Berry Farm and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association (the “Plaintiffs”), is claimed to be unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs argued that the Final Rule violates the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) by granting H-2A farmworkers greater organizing and collective bargaining rights than those afforded to U.S. citizen agricultural workers, effectively bypassing the Act. The U.S. District Court in Georgia sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the Department of Labor's Final Rule improperly creates a right that Congress did not intend and did not create by statute. The court emphasized that administrative agencies, including the DOL, cannot create laws or rights that Congress has not established. The court criticized the DOL for overstepping its authority, stating that while the DOL can assist Congress, it cannot assume the role of Congress. The court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the DOL from enforcing the Final Rule, but only for the Plaintiffs. Thus, the preliminary injunction will only apply in Georgia, Kansas, South Carolina, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The injunction will also apply to Miles Berry Farm and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. We will keep you updated as the case goes up on appeal and how this ruling affects other H-2A lawsuits across the country. 

Florida Cultivated Meat Ban Challenged. A California business has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Florida, challenging a law that bans the sale of cultivated meat. The company argues that Florida's prohibition is unconstitutional, claiming it violates their right to engage in interstate commerce by restricting their ability to sell their products across state lines. Upside Foods, Inc., the California based company, alleges that Florida Senate Bill 1084 (“SB 1084”), which bans the manufacture, distribution, and sale of cultivated meat, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause because SB 1084 “is expressly preempted by federal laws regulating meat and poultry products.” Furthermore, Upside Foods alleges that SB 1084 violates the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause because SB 1084 “was enacted with the express purpose of insulating Florida agricultural businesses from innovative, out-of-state competition like UPSIDE.” Upside Foods has asked the district court in Florida to declare SB 1084 unconstitutional and to issue an injunction preventing SB 1084’s enforcement. Proponents of SB 1084 argue that the law protects Floridians, however, Upside Foods alleges that the Florida ban isn’t meant to protect the public, rather it was passed to “protect in-state agricultural interests from out-of-state competition.” 

Board of Tax Appeals Finds Utility Vehicle Not Exempt Under Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption. Claugus Family Farm LP (CFF), an Ohio timber farm, purchased a 2015 Mercedes-Benz utility vehicle and claimed it was exempt from sales tax under Ohio’s Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption. After an audit, the Ohio Department of Taxation assessed the sales tax on the vehicle. CFF petitioned for reassessment, but the Ohio Tax Commissioner determined that CFF did not provide enough evidence to prove the vehicle was primarily used for farming as required by law. CFF then appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, arguing that the vehicle was mainly used for farming operations, such as transporting people around the farm, monitoring tree health, applying pesticides, maintaining equipment, and carrying supplies. CFF claimed the vehicle was used 95% of the time on farming activities. Upon review, the Board of Tax Appeals noted that “the use of vehicles for transportation around a farm, as well as general uses such as delivering parts and cutting and hauling of wood and brush, do not constitute direct farming activities.” The Board held that the vehicle was used primarily for these purposes and not directly in farming and thus found the vehicle to be subject to Ohio’s sales and use tax. 

EPA Emergency Order Suspends Use of Pesticide DCPA/Dacthal. On August 7, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued an Emergency Order immediately suspending the registration and use of all pesticides containing dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate (“DCPA” or “Dacthal”). The EPA cited the danger the substance poses to pregnant women and unborn babies. The agency determined that the continued sale, distribution, or use of DCPA products during the cancellation process would present an imminent hazard, justifying the emergency suspension without a prior hearing. Despite efforts by AMVAC Chemical Corporation, the sole registrant of DCPA products, to address these concerns, the EPA concluded that no practicable mitigations could make the use of DCPA safe.