A federal judge in Fresno has rejected an attempt by a group of meat processor workers to move forward with a class action lawsuit against food processing giant Cargill, in which they claimed their employer had shorted their wages and allegedly committed other labor law violations.
In the decision, Oberto said the workers that Tavares and her legal team sought to lump together into a class of as many as 4,000 or more additional current and former workers at Cargill’s Fresno plant did not share enough in common and did not all experience the same treatment under Cargill’s alleged policies and shortcomings to allow all of their potential claims to move forward collectively.
Tavares filed suit against Cargill in 2018, bringing the case as a class action and as a representative action on behalf of coworkers under the California Private Attorneys General Act, a state law which allows individual workers to stand in place of state labor officials in pressing claims against their employer for alleged violations of labor law.
In the lawsuit, Tavares asserted Cargill had refused to pay workers for time spent putting and taking off personal protective gear at the beginning and end of work shifts; of failing to pay workers for time spent in Covid health screenings; and for denying workers their required meal break periods, among other alleged violations of labor law.
The lawsuit was initially filed in Fresno County Superior Court, but was removed to the Eastern District federal court by Cargill.
After amending the lawsuit following a partial dismissal, Tavares and her attorneys filed a motion in May 2023, asking the court to certify the case as a class action to include virtually all Cargill workers at the Fresno meat processing plant since 2014.
Magistrate Judge Oberto then issued her ruling, finding in favor of Cargill and recommending a U.S. District judge ultimately deny the motion for class action motion.
In the ruling, Oberto said Tavares did not present enough evidence to back her claims that all workers shared her alleged experiences while working for Cargill in Fresno.
Further, Oberto said some of the evidence and testimony Tavares presented undermined some of her claims, as well.
The judge said she believed the evidence indicated Cargill did not have “uniform policies of off-the-clock donning and doffing standard PPE (personal protective equipment), Covid health checks, cleaning lockers, and reading bulletin boards.”
She noted, for instance, that some employees were allowed to store their equipment in lockers, while others kept certain kinds of protective gear at their work stations, and still others were allowed to take their gear home.
Further, the judge said Tavares could present no evidence that she and her coworkers were ever denied required meal breaks, only that they would from time to time need to remove some PPE when taking their breaks.
And the judge also dispensed with Tavares’ claims that Cargill did not properly reimburse workers for the purchase of some work equipment, such as steel-toed work boots. The judge noted, for instance, that Cargill provided workers with a pair of boots when they began working at the plant. If they wished for different shoes, the company provided them with a $100 voucher to the company store to purchase others, but told workers they would need to pay any amount exceeding $100 from their own pocket.
In all instances, the judge said Cargill’s policies appeared to be both facially neutral and in compliance with California law.
To determine if anyone else was treated differently, the judge said, would require so-called “individual inquiries” which would undermine the ability of the case to move forward as a class action.
Tavares has been represented in the case by attorneys Edwin Aiwazian, of Lawyers for Justice PC, of Glendale; Cody R. Kennedy, of Marlin & Saltzman LLP, of Agoura Hills; and Gregory E. Mauro, of James Hawkins APLC, of Irvine.
Cargill is represented by attorney Jason E. Barsanti and others with the firm of Cozen O’Connor, of San Diego, Santa Monica and San Francisco.