ARTICLE
30 September 2022

Poultry Processors Settle With Department Of Justice Over Wage Information Exchanges

SM
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton

Contributor

Sheppard Mullin is a full service Global 100 firm with over 1,000 attorneys in 16 offices located in the United States, Europe and Asia. Since 1927, companies have turned to Sheppard Mullin to handle corporate and technology matters, high stakes litigation and complex financial transactions. In the US, the firm’s clients include more than half of the Fortune 100.
The eyepopping $85 million settlement captured headlines, but this case is more than a cautionary tale about unlawful wage fixing.
United States Privacy

This summer the US Department of Justice settled with three poultry processors, Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., Sanderson Farms, Inc., and Wayne Farms, LLC. (U.S. v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. et al, 1:22-cv-01821 (D. Md. 2022)). The antitrust case focused on "long-running conspiracy to exchange information about wages and benefits for poultry processing plant workers and collaborate with their competitors on compensation decisions."

The eyepopping $85 million settlement captured headlines, but this case is more than a cautionary tale about unlawful wage fixing.

Cargill serves as a reminder and a warning for all employers about how to use compensation research or other analyses of employee data. In this case, the processors allegedly shared confidential employee wage and benefit information to make industry-wide decisions about compensation for their workers. They also, according to the DOJ, engaged consulting firms to collect and circulate disaggregated identifiable data, including employee wage information.

While it is common and legal to conduct market research and benchmark compensation, disclosure of employee data could create risk for the employer under a variety of privacy laws. These might include allegations that the information is being used deceptively or unfairly, actionable under unfair and deceptive trade practice laws. Or, it could result in alleged violations under newer state comprehensive privacy laws. For example, California's CCPA require employers to provide notice to employees at the time of data collection. That notice needs to explain the reason for collection of the data and the scope of use. State privacy laws prohibit employers from collecting data for one stated purpose and using it for another. For example, collecting personal data to process payroll and then sharing it with a third party for industry-wide compensation research.

Putting It Into Practice: Cargill serves as a reminder for employers to properly train their HR team on privacy law requirements and ensuring that privacy notices are an accurate and up-to-date reflection of current practices.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More