Several consumer organizations have called on President Barack Obama (D) to appeal a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling that favored Canada and Mexico in a dispute over U.S. country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) requirements for beef and pork products. In their February 24, 2012, letter, Consumers Union, Food & Water Watch, Public Citizen, and the Consumer Federation of America contend that the WTO panel issued a “conflicted ruling” by affirming this country’s right to require COOL for meat products, but finding that specific requirements were less favorable to Canada and Mexico. Details about the WTO ruling appear in Issue 419 of this Update. According to the letter, COOL “is wildly popular in the U.S., as poll after poll show overwhelming support for labeling. Indeed, nations around the world are implementing variants of such laws.”
Category Archives Litigation
A Mississippi appeals court has determined that neither McDonald’s Corp. nor one of its franchisees could be held liable for injuries allegedly resulting from a spatula-wielding cashier’s response to a dispute with a customer. Parmenter v. J&B Enters., Inc. No. 2010-CA-01251 (Miss. Ct. App., decided February 21, 2012). Affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and directed verdict in favor of the defendants, the court determined that McDonald’s did not exercise the requisite level of control over the employee to be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior and that the employee was not acting within the scope of her employment when she engaged in the altercation, thus rendering the franchisee not liable under the same doctrine. The plaintiff also brought claims of negligent hiring and training, and the appeals court found insufficient evidence to support either claim. The court further ruled that the trial court properly disqualified the plaintiff’s…
The consumer group Emun Hazibur has reportedly filed a complaint with Israel’s antitrust authority alleging that The Strauss Group, ranked second among food manufacturers in the country, is exploiting its 63 percent share of the chocolate market by overcharging customers. The group and several others apparently compared the company’s prices to leading brands in other markets and found some Strauss products about one-third more expensive. According to a news source, Strauss called some of the data inaccurate and indicated that it had recently reduced prices on 50 of its core products. It also apparently claimed that final customer prices are set by retailers. Israel’s antitrust authority reportedly determined several years ago that Strauss-Elite illegally manipulated the market to hinder the sale of imported chocolate from Britain. See Haaretz.com, February 27, 2012; Confectionerynews.com, February 29, 2012.
According to a news source, the industry interests that lost their challenge to the listing of 4-MEI as a chemical known to California to cause cancer have filed an appeal in the Third District Court of Appeals. Cal. League of Food Processors v. OEHHA, No. C070406 (Cal. Ct. App., 3rd Dist., appeal filed February 10, 2012). The chemical is commonly found in foods such as soy sauce, roasted coffee and the caramel coloring added to colas and beer. California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added the chemical to the Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) list in January 2011, and a California Superior Court rejected the challenge filed by the California League of Food Processors, American Beverage Association, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and National Coffee Association in November. Additional information about the court’s ruling appears in Issue 420 of this Update. The plaintiffs reportedly argue that appellate intervention is needed “before…
Sixty-five legal migrant workers from Mexico have filed a putative class action against GLK Foods, LLC in a federal court in Wisconsin, seeking to recover wages and damages for breach of contract, including the cost of transportation if the workers were terminated before the end of their certified period of employment. Jiminez v. GLK Foods LLC, No. 12-209 (E.D. Wis., filed February 29, 2012). The action was brought under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Wisconsin Migrant Labor Act, and Wisconsin Wage Payments, Claims and Collections Act. The workers were allegedly recruited from Mexico and employed in the United States in the defendant’s sauerkraut cannery under the H-2B temporary foreign worker visa program over a period of five years beginning in 2006. They claim that employers seeking to hire H-2B workers, where sufficient domestic workers are unavailable to perform the job, must file an application…
A California resident has filed a putative class action in a California federal court against the companies that make a line of SoBe® beverages known as 0 Calories Lifewater®, alleging that the product labels and promotions are misleading. Hairston v. S. Beach Beverage Co., Inc., No. 12-1429 (C.D. Cal., filed February 21, 2012). According to the plaintiff, the companies label the product as “all natural” despite purported non-natural and synthetic ingredients, such as ascorbic acid, cyanocobalamin, calcium pantothenate, niacinamide, and pyridoxine hydrochloride, which are apparently listed on product labels as Vitamins C, B12, B5, B3, and B6, respectively. He claims that reasonable consumers “do not have the specialized knowledge necessary to identify ingredients in SoBe Beverages as being inconsistent with the ‘All Natural’ claims.” The plaintiff also alleges that the companies deceive consumers by using the names of fruits on the labels. For example, the “B-Energy Strawberry Apricot, does not…
A federal court in Minnesota has determined that General Mills Operations, LLC was entitled to an award of prejudgment interest of 10 percent per year from the date it provided a written notice of claim to the company that supplied it with contaminated beef products subject to a recall in 2008. Gen. Mills Operations, LLC v. Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd., No. 10-15 (D. Minn., decided February 24, 2012). According to the court, the only matters in dispute in this contract action were whether General Mills’ May 27, 2008, letter informing the defendant that it had incurred losses of at least $1.4 million constituted a “written notice of claim” under Minnesota’s prejudgment interest statute and the appropriate interest rate to apply. While the letter indicated that costs could continue to accrue and did not include evidentiary support, it did demand prompt payment of $1.4 million “in full settlement of this…
A federal court in New York has dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, the claims filed by numerous organic farming interests seeking a declaration that they are not infringing Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) seed patents, the patents are invalid and unenforceable and the company would not be entitled to remedies against them. Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co., No. 11-2163 (S.D.N.Y., decided February 24, 2012). According to the court, because Monsanto has an express policy not to bring infringement actions against a farmer whose fields have trace amounts of its seed or traits “as a result of inadvertent means,” such as seed drift, cross-pollination or commingling with tainted equipment, the plaintiffs are unable to establish a substantial controversy or an injury traceable to the defendant. While Monsanto has brought 144 infringement actions against farmers over a 13-year period, the court found this insignificant given the 2 million farms currently…
Counsel for five current and former Illinois prison inmates has reportedly indicated that four expert witnesses are prepared to testify that the soy in the inmates’ prison diets caused them “irreparable, actual harm,” and thus their litigation against the state, prison wardens and nurses will proceed. Harris v. Brown, No. 07-03225 (C.D. Ill., filed August 16, 2007). According to a news source, the inmates are seeking an order to stop the Illinois Department of Corrections from using soy in the food prisoners eat; the plaintiffs claim they consumed up to 100 grams of soy protein daily despite Food and Drug Administration recommendations that soy intake not exceed 25 grams. Claiming violations of their Eighth Amendment rights to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, the plaintiffs are being represented by the Weston A. Price Foundation, which opposes soy foods and has backed similar lawsuits in other states. The foundation claims that…
Starbucks Corp. has filed its response in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a dispute over tip sharing, asking the court to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in its favor. Lawrence v. Starbucks Corp., No. 11-3199 (2d Cir., brief filed February 22, 2012). Additional information about related litigation involving Starbucks baristas and shift supervisors appears in Issue 256 of this Update. The company asserts that the district court correctly held that (i) New York labor law does not grant plaintiff assistant store managers the right to participate in a tip pool, and Starbucks did not “demand,” “accept,” or “retain” their tips; (ii) Starbucks’ policy of allowing only baristas and shift supervisors to share tips is consistent with state law; and (iii) assistant store managers exercise control over their subordinates’ employment status and are thus “agents” prohibited from sharing tips under state law.
