In a reply brief before the Eighth Circuit filed on Tuesday, Tyson Foods Inc. argued that it fulfilled its duties to protect employees during the COVID-19 pandemic and followed national guidelines, while helping prevent a food shortage. The company alleged that since it was following federal directions to keep the food supply secure, that the plaintiffs do not have a basis for filing litigation against actions Tyson took at the behest of the federal government.
“In the throes of the greatest national health crisis in a century, ensuring that the nation’s food supply remained secure ranked high among the federal government’s top priorities. … Tyson provided that cooperation under the close direction of federal officers from the earliest days of the pandemic, even before the directives were formalized.”
Plaintiffs in the two lawsuits leading to this appeal alleged that Tyson did not handle the COVID-19 pandemic well in its Waterloo Iowa plant, which led the deaths of some of its employees. The lawsuits were filed by family members of the deceased employees. The plaintiffs explained that the employees were not given protective equipment, or the ability to distance from each other. Additionally, the managers at the plant were accused of placing monetary bets regarding how many employees at the plant would contract COVID-19.
In its brief, Tyson purported that the plaintiffs’ opinion seems to be that the company should have ignored federal information, and “forced the federal government to formalize matters from the outset,” which Tyson claimed would have led to a food shortage which would have made the health-crisis caused by the pandemic worse. Tyson purported that keeping the nation’s food supply stable was crucial, and that Congress and the President agreed with this.
The current conflict being debated in the Eighth Circuit is where the matter should be heard, the plaintiffs allege that it falls under state labor laws and should be heard in the county court system, however, Tyson claims that the Executive Order given regarding meatpacking plants gives federal laws which led them to the actions they took, and that the matter should be heard in the Northern District of Iowa. The plaintiffs reported, however, that the executive order was given after the outbreak at the plant which caused the plaintiffs’ family members to be exposed to COVID-19.
To support its allegations that it was acting under federal direction, Tyson claimed that it has a preemption defense under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and defenses based on other federal directives. It claimed that it acted under federal guidance, rather than under local or state guidance, and because of that the company alleged it should be allowed to provide a defense in federal court.
Tyson Foods, Ing. and some individual defendants are represented by Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Other individual defendants are represented by Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath.
