A former worker for Marder Trawling Inc., addresses demonstrators gathered outside the fish house in November of 2025. Credit: Photo courtesy of Lisa Maya Knauer
by Kevin G. Andrade, July 14, 2026
A federal judge hearing a lawsuit by several former New Bedford fish house workers has rejected an attempt to send the dispute to arbitration — but left the door open for the companies to seek arbitration again.
The workers allege that a former floor manager at Marder Trawling’s waterfront fish house, Francisco Ixcotoyac Dionicio, extorted money as a condition of employment. They are seeking unpaid overtime, damages, and legal fees from Marder, a temporary staffing agency, and Ixcotoyac Dionicio.
Workforce Unlimited, Inc., the temporary staffing agency that employed the laborers, argued that the dispute had to go to arbitration, not court, because of documents the workers signed early in their employment.
But the workers claimed they were unaware that they signed agreements to arbitrate.
“The totality of the facts raised by Plaintiffs sparks meaningful questions about whether Workforce Defendants provided Workforce Plaintiffs with sufficient notice of the arbitration agreements,” Judge Leo T. Sorokin of U.S. District Court Massachusetts wrote in a decision late Friday.
Sorokin denied the companies’ motions without prejudice, which means the companies can try again to force arbitration.
The judge ordered the parties to submit a status report by this Friday. In it, the companies can propose a schedule for another motion to compel arbitration.
“The Court anticipates holding an evidentiary hearing on any renewed motion to compel [arbitration] if necessary to resolve factual determinations,” the judge wrote.
The decision came days after a July 6 hearing on the motion where the plaintiffs were present in the gallery and accompanied by representatives from the Centro Comunitario de Trabajadores, the New Bedford organization that helped them organize the suit.
“Within four days, the Court issued its decision, and we believe this is a direct result of the Plaintiffs being in the courtroom with us,” said Keally Cieslik, an attorney for Justice at Work representing the plaintiffs. “The Judge was able to see for himself that the Plaintiffs and putative class members are not people who can sit around for years waiting for a decision on just this question, while delaying the prosecution of their claims for money stolen from them — money they need now more than ever.”
In a statement to The Light, a spokesman for Marder minimized the decision’s impact.
“The Court’s ruling is procedural and should not be mischaracterized as a significant victory for the plaintiffs,” the statement read. “The Court did not hold that the arbitration agreements are invalid or unenforceable. Instead, the ruling primarily concerns disputed factual questions about how Workforce Unlimited handled its hiring and onboarding process.”
The statement said that Marder “is entitled to enforce the arbitration agreements” and said it reserves the right to raise the issue again.
The complaint accused Ixcotoyac Dionicio, the former floor manager at Marder, of requiring workers he recruited to pay him $100 weekly as a condition of employment. The complaint also alleged that Ixcotoyac Dionicio obligated workers living in Rhode Island to commute to and from work using vans he owned and that he charged $60 weekly for the service.
