The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and Mercury Policy Project have sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seeking a declaration that the agency’s delay in responding to their citizen petition on labeling fish with high levels of mercury is unreasonable and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. CSPI v. FDA, No. 14-0375 (D.D.C., filed March 10, 2014). Further details about the petition, which seeks labeling on seafood packaging and point-of-purchase signage, appear in Issue 401 of this Update. The plaintiffs also seek an order compelling the agency to issue a final response by a court-imposed deadline. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs submitted the petition to FDA in July 2011 and received a tentative response from the agency beyond the 180-day limit required by FDA regulations. The plaintiffs claim that they have not received any communication from FDA since then…
Category Archives 4th Circuit
A federal court in Washington, D.C., has reportedly refused to reconsider its denial of hundreds of claims by African-American farmers who alleged that they were owed a share of the $1.25-billion settlement fund established to compensate a class of farmers allegedly discriminated against by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) loan application process. In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litig., No. 08-0511 (D.D.C., order entered March 5, 2014). Information about the lawsuit and a dispute over attorney’s fees appears in Issue 490 of this Update. According to a news source, the court determined that it lacked authority to alter the terms of the settlement agreement, which provided that claims determinations would be considered final and not subject to court review. “This may be cold comfort to claimants who feel that their claims were denied in error; but without the Settlement Agreement, the amount of relief attainable by members of the plaintiff…
As the fiscal year came to a close and on the eve of the federal government shutdown, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed nearly two dozen employment discrimination lawsuits including one against GMRI, Inc. alleging discrimination based on sex on behalf of a class of women employees at a Salisbury, Maryland, Red Lobster Restaurant. EEOC v. GMRI, Inc., No. 13-2860 (D. Md., filed September 30, 2013). According to the complaint, the defendant’s former culinary manager created a sexually hostile and offensive work environment for the two women who filed the complaint as well as “other similarly situated female employees” by engaging in frequent sexual touching, sexual comments, sexual advances, and vulgar sexual conduct. The conduct, which was allegedly “open and notorious and occurred on a frequent and routine basis,” was purportedly condoned by a former general manager who “himself had a history of making sexually charged and vulgar comments…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has dismissed, for lack of standing, a lawsuit filed by the Humane Society of the United States and several other plaintiffs against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging the secretary’s approval of the National Pork Board’s purchase of the slogan “Pork, The Other White Meat” from the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). The Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. Vilsack, No. 12-1582 (D.D.C., decided September 25, 2013). Details about the lawsuit appear in Issue 455 of this Update. According to the court, the individual pork farmer plaintiff lacked standing because he could not show that changes to the advertising funded by the pork checkoff program following the board’s purchase and retirement of the slogan affected him financially. In fact, since the board began advertising with the slogan “Pork: Be Inspired,” the net return on investment to pork producers rose from $13.8…
A divided Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel has determined that a Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control Board prohibition on alcohol advertisements in college newspapers, as applied, violates the First Amendment rights of two campus newspapers because the majority of the papers’ readers are age 21 or older, and thus the rule is “not appropriately tailored to Virginia’s stated aim.” Educ. Media Co. at Va. Tech, Inc. v. Insley, No. 12-2183 (4th Cir., decided September 25, 2013). So ruling, the court reversed a district court decision upholding the rule’s validity. The board argued that the purpose of the regulation “is to combat underage and abusive college drinking.” The court majority found that, under either a strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny analysis, the regulation was overbroad as applied to college newspapers that were read by college students of legal age. The regulation failed, said the court, “because it prohibits large numbers of…
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a complaint against Performance Food Group, Inc., alleging that it had a “standard operating procedure of denying employment to female applicants for operative positions in its [warehouse] facilities on the basis of their gender”; EEOC also alleges that the defendant failed to promote a woman at its Maryland facility on the basis of her gender. EEOC v. Performance Food Group, Inc., No. 13-1712 (D. Md., filed June 13, 2013). The defendant apparently distributes food-related products to more than 130,000 independent and national chain restaurants, theaters, schools, hotels, health care facilities, and other institutions across the United States. According to the complaint, the defendant unlawfully discriminated against hiring women at multiple facilities since at least January 1, 2004, for warehouse positions that required the operation of machinery and factory-related processing equipment or were supervisory occupations. A corporate senior vice president allegedly stated on…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has denied the American Meat Institute’s motion for a preliminary injunction in a challenge to the amended country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rules adopted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Agricultural Marketing Service in response to a World Trade Organization (WTO) determination that the original rules violated the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade by according less favorable treatment to foreign livestock. Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, No. 13-1033 (D.D.C., decided September 11, 2013). The court was not persuaded that the plaintiffs, meat processing interests, were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment and statutory challenges to the amended rule. Additional information about the challenge appears in Issue 495 of this Update. Assessing the First Amendment claims under a lenient reasonableness standard because the rule involved commercial speech that mandated purely factual and uncontroversial disclosures, the court determined that…
According to a news source, the federal court that heard a challenge to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) revision to its country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rules to comply with a World Trade Organization ruling stated during the hearing that it would issue a decision on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction within 14 days. Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, No. 13-1033 (D.D.C., oral argument held August 27, 2013). Additional information about a dispute that has split trade associations representing different parts of the meat production industry appears in issues 490 and 495 of this Update. The organizations seeking the injunction reportedly argued that “[t]his is a regulation the agency concedes is a de minimis benefit . . . for a de maximus cost.” They contend that the new rules violate their First Amendment rights and could put them out of business. A USDA attorney apparently argued that the new…
A federal court in the District of Columbia will consider on August 27, 2013, whether to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from implementing country-of-origin labeling (COOL) program changes required by a 2011 World Trade Organization (WTO) determination that, as initially drafted, the rules gave less favorable treatment to cattle and hogs imported from Canada and Mexico. Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, No. 13-1033 (filed July 8, 2013). Information about the revised COOL rule appears in Issue 485 of this Update. A number of meat-processing interests, including the American Meat Institute, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, Confederación Nacional de Organizaciones Ganaderas, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and National Pork Producers Council, challenged the new rule alleging that it violates First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, exceeds USDA’s authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. In early August, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA), National Farmers Union, American…
A federal court has awarded $90.8 million to the attorneys who represented African-American farmers in litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture alleging discrimination in the loan application process. In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litig., No. 08-0511 (D.D.C., decided July 11, 2013). Additional details about class counsels’ request appear in Issue 405 of this Update. Explaining the challenges counsel faced, their extensive efforts to secure an award for the class of farmers in excess of $1 billion, the millions they incurred in unreimbursed expenses, as well as the hours devoted to assisting the Claims Administrator during the claims process, the court found an award representing 7.4 percent of the claims fund reasonable. According to the court, “Class counsel have undertaken the immense challenge presented by this action with the utmost professionalism and integrity, exhibiting skill, diligence, and efficiency in all aspects of their duties.”
