Amid COVID-19 Shutdowns, Pork Giant Smithfield Foods Sued by Worker Group
Employees are working "shoulder to shoulder" without sufficient protective gear, and forced to take breaks in cramped spaces where social distancing is impossible, according to a federal lawsuit filed Thursday in Missouri.
April 23, 2020 at 09:23 PM
4 minute read
Smithfield Foods, the nation's largest pork producer, is facing a federal lawsuit over working conditions in its Milan, Missouri, plant. The facility has remained open despite the closure of two other processing plants due to the spread of COVID-19 among employees.
The Rural Community Workers Alliance and a Milan plant worker filed a complaint in Missouri Western District Court Thursday, alleging that the company is putting employee lives at risk by failing to comply with Center for Disease Control and Prevention safety guidelines concerning the COVID-19 pandemic.
The case, filed by lawyers at Heartland Center for Jobs and Freedom, Towards Justice and Public Justice, is the first to challenge working conditions at a meat packing plant, according to Public Justice senior attorney David Muraskin.
The suit seeks an injunction that would compel Smithfield to comply with CDC and state health official guidelines, including admonitions to reduce face-to-face contact in the workplace, to provide for physical distance of 6 feet between employees and to offer sick leave policies that encourage sick employees to stay home.
"Notwithstanding the horrific situation facing many of its employees around the country and abundantly clear guidance from the [CDC] and state public health officials, Smithfield continues to operate its plant in Milan, Missouri in a manner that contributes to the spread of [the] disease," the complaint states.
Unlike Smithfield plants in South Dakota and Wisconsin, the Missouri plant continues to operate. Employees are working "shoulder to shoulder" without sufficient protective gear, and forced to take breaks in cramped spaces where social distancing is impossible, the complaint states. Company policies incentivize sick employees to come to work, the suit alleges.
The plaintiffs contend that Smithfield's policies endanger the broader Milan community, as well as workers, by creating conditions for the spread of COVID-19.
Keira Lombardo, Smithfield Foods executive vice president for corporate affairs and compliance, denied the suit's assertions in an emailed statement: "The allegations contained in the complaint are without factual or legal merit and include claims previously made against the company that have been investigated and determined to be unfounded. We look forward to aggressively defending the company in court."
Participating in the Missouri case is a Smithfield employee of more than five years, who is proceeding under a pseudonym due to fear of retaliation. The Jane Doe plaintiff claims to know more than half a dozen co-workers who have displayed symptoms of COVID-19.
On April 12, Smithfield's Sioux Falls, South Dakota, plant was forced to close indefinitely after more than 500 employees became infected with COVID-19. Days later, Smithfield's Cudahay, Wisconsin, plant was also shuttered due to employees testing positive for the coronavirus. Earlier Thursday, five cases of the coronavirus were confirmed at the Smithfield plant in Crete, Nebraska.
Muraskin, of Public Justice, said his team is investigating the conditions at Smithfield plants in Nebraska, North Carolina, Colorado, Arkansas and Pennsylvania and expects to file additional suits.
Smithfield has been under fire for what critics see as a lackluster response to the pandemic and some experts are predicting a national meat shortage as the industry continues dealing with the spread of the illness in its production plants.
The case is Rural Community Workers Alliance v. Smithfield Foods, 5:20-cv-06063.
Sign up for Law.com's Legal Radar to keep up with the latest news and lawsuits in a free, personalized news feed. Track new federal litigation by industry, practice area, law firm, company and region.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Better of the Split': District Judge Weighs Circuit Divide in Considering Who Pays Decades-Old Medical Bill
K&L Gates Files String of Suits Against Electronics Manufacturer's Competitors, Brightness Misrepresentations
3 minute readIll. Class Action Claims Cannabis Companies Sell Products with Excessive THC Content
4 minute readPlaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250