Overview
Cohen Milstein represented a certified class of 15,000 chicken processing employees of Perdue Farms, Inc., one of the nation’s largest poultry processors, for wage and hour violations.
The suit challenged Perdue’s failure to compensate its hourly processing workers for “donning and doffing,” i.e., putting on, taking off, and cleaning, protective and sanitary gear and equipment in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), various state wage and hour laws, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
After this suit was filed in 1999, the U.S. Department of Labor filed its own suit related to the same violations, which later settled for $10 million, and Perdue’s agreement to change its pay practices. While the DOL suit precluded plaintiffs from continuing to pursue FLSA claims for any but the workers who had already opted-in to the lawsuit, it did not block the state law claims. Plaintiffs contended that the settlement obtained by DOL was not sufficient to cover their unpaid time and continued to litigate. In 2002, the Court approved a $10 million settlement for lost wages and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Cohen Milstein was court-appointed co-lead counsel in this matter.
Case Background
Perdue Farms, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that, at the time of the litigation, operated sixteen chicken processing plants in eight states, including Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
Originally filed in 1999, Leona Trotter and six other hourly employees of Perdue represented a class of approximately 15,000 current and former hourly employees of Perdue who worked in any one of Perdue’s chicken processing plants from December 16, 1993 to August 16, 2001, and who were participating in the Perdue Supplemental Retirement Plan at the time. The plaintiffs alleged that Perdue did not compensate them for work done for the company’s benefit – namely, the donning, doffing, and cleaning of required safety and sanitary equipment before and after working on Perdue’s production lines.
Wearing such protective gear and equipment is required not only for worker safety, but to comply with U.S. Department of Agriculture food safety regulations.
Plaintiffs alleged that they were entitled to compensation for that time and asserted claims for
compensation based on the FLSA, and state wage and hour laws of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and, because under Perdue’s plan, an amount equal to a percentage of their wages earned was paid into the Supplemental Retirement Plan, ERISA.
Plaintiffs sought redress from both Perdue and the Retirement and Benefits Committee of the Perdue Supplemental Retirement Plan, which was appointed by Perdue as the administrator of its employee benefits plan.