A federal judge last week refused to throw out a long-running lawsuit against private prison operator The GEO Group, and is instead permitting a jury to decide whether the company violated federal human trafficking law and unjustly enriched itself off of detainee labor in Aurora.

In unusually strong terms, U.S. District Court Senior Judge John L. Kane slammed GEO Group for its “arrogance” and for being “deceptive” in its attempt to avoid a jury trial. Kane determined the company will not receive immunity for allegedly forcing a class of detained immigrants to perform cleaning work in its facility under the threat of potential solitary confinement.

“It likewise does not matter that segregation was rarely imposed or that on occasion class members faced no consequences for refusing to clean, as GEO’s policies ensured the threat was pervasive,” Kane wrote in an Oct. 18 order.

The judge also rejected GEO Group’s claim that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which contracts with GEO Group to run the 1,532-bed Aurora detention center, left the company no choice but to pay detainees only $1 per day through a “voluntary” labor program.

There was “no evidence that ICE prohibited GEO from compensating its workers more than $1.00 per day,” Kane noted.

Towards Justice, a nonprofit law firm in Denver, has been involved in the class action lawsuit since October 2014, when the complaint was first filed.

“This decision makes clear what our clients have long known: The cruel and unlawful practices at issue in this case are rooted in GEO’s desire to maximize profit and exploit the labor of vulnerable detained immigrants – not government requirements,” said litigation director Juno Turner in statement.

GEO Group did not respond to a request seeking comment. A representative for ICE, which is not a party to the case, also did not reply.

Kane’s order comes one year after GEO Group lost a pair of lawsuits in Washington that made substantially similar claims, with a total judgment of $23.2 million against the company. Washington’s attorney general said at the time that GEO Group “illegally exploited the people it detains.” This month, a federal appellate court heard arguments in the company’s appeal.

The plaintiffs in the Colorado lawsuit were detainees in Aurora who claimed GEO Group violated federal or state law in two ways. First, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 makes it unlawful to knowingly coerce labor out of another person through serious harm or threats of serious harm. Requiring detainees to clean not just their personal space, but the common areas of the detention center under threat of solitary confinement, allegedly ran afoul of that prohibition.

Second, GEO Group’s $1-per-day compensation for inmates in a voluntary work program allegedly amounted to unjust enrichment under Colorado law, with GEO Group unfairly receiving a benefit at the detainees’ expense without properly compensating them.

For the trafficking allegations, the class action lawsuit covers all detainees at Aurora in the 10 years prior to October 2014, when the lawsuit was filed. The unjust enrichment claims affect only detainees who participated in the work program in the three years before October 2014.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit rejected GEO Group’s attempt to undo the class action nature of the lawsuit in 2018. The company then filed a series of motions in 2020 to end the case. It renewed its class-action argument to Kane while also adding that it should receive immunity, that ICE should be joined into the lawsuit, and that the facts of the case should allow GEO Group to prevail under the law without a trial.

In a lengthy order, Kane found each claim unavailing. The judge attempted to piece together various policies, testimony and other documentation to illuminate how each of GEO Group’s challenged practices came to be.

According to ICE’s contract with GEO Group, the company receives payments from the government based on the number of beds, and GEO Group makes a profit when it spends less than it receives from ICE.

The GEO Group contract referenced a federal regulation that prohibits it from using forced labor, but also acknowledged the acceptable practice of making detainees “clean their housing area.” Similarly, ICE’s detention standards list the types of housekeeping work detainees are expected to do: make their beds, stack their papers, and keep the floor and fixtures free of clutter.

Further, ICE’s contract with GEO Group reimbursed the company $1 per day for each detainee in the facility’s voluntary labor program. Beginning in 2011, ICE’s standards required GEO Group, in turn, to compensate the detainees “at least” $1 per day.

GEO Group argued it was entitled to various types of immunity on the theory that the government had directed the company how to act through its contract.

“ICE’s performance standards required a payment of exactly $1.00 per day,” wrote the company’s lawyers. “GEO merely performed as the federal government lawfully directed.”

GEO Group further predicted dire consequences were Kane to rule it could face a jury trial for asking detainees to clean up the common areas.

“Plaintiffs seek a precedential decision that would put every detention facility, jail, mental health facility, and juvenile detention center at risk of being credibly accused of forced labor,” the company added.

Kane waved aside GEO Group’s claims of immunity. It was true contractors may not be held liable for executing a government directive. But in this case, ICE did not require GEO Group to pay inmates exactly $1 per day for labor, nor did its policies force GEO Group to have detainees perform general housekeeping work. Kane observed ICE’s standards do not envision detainees serving as a “substitute for cleaning staff.”

Even though not every detainee was threatened with or actually sent to solitary confinement for refusing to participate in the cleaning, Kane cited expert testimony about the harmful psychological effects of isolation on people behind bars. If a detention center’s regulations compel labor from its detainees, Kane wrote, “credible accusations of forced labor may follow.”

He believed a jury could reasonably find the threat of solitary confinement – 72 hours, as policy permitted – amounted to the type of harm forbidden by the federal human trafficking law.

The judge also scolded GEO Group for the way it had argued its position, saying its “tone and arrogance are not well taken.” He also called out GEO Group for modifying a quote from a different court decision to fit its argument, calling the alteration “deceptive.”

The case is Menocal et al. v. The GEO Group, Inc.