Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 2
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`
`KENNETH C. ANDERSON
`
`
`VS. CASE NO.: 4:21-cv-04012-SOH
`
`
`TYSON FOODS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PLAINTIFF
`
`
`
`
`
` DEFENDANT
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Introduction
`
`
` This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000 et seq. (Title VII of the Civil
`
`Rights Act of 1964, as amended), and pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
`
`Constitution, in order to recover damages against the defendant for the unlawful employment
`
`practices that the plaintiff, KENNETH C. ANDERSON, has been subjected to on account of his
`
`race and in retaliation for having complained about discriminatory treatment. The plaintiff also
`
`seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, in that the unlawful employment practices were
`
`committed by the defendant. This is also an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C.S. § 2201 to declare the rights and other legal relations between the parties. The plaintiff is
`
`also seeking equitable relief and injunctive relief as well.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`1.
`
`Jurisdiction and venue of this Court are invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`
`1343, 1391, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 3
`
`and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Unites States Constitution, and retaliation for exercising his
`
`rights under29 U.S.C.S. § 185 et seq. and pendent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S § 1367.
`
`2.
`
`Venue is proper in the Western District of Arkansas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S. §
`
`1391(b)(c) as the unlawful employment practices alleged to have been committed against the
`
`plaintiff were committed in the State of Arkansas, and in Howard County, Arkansas, and the
`
`defendant conducted business in the district at all relevant times herein.
`
`II.
`
`Parties
`
`3.
`
`The plaintiff Kenneth C. Anderson is an African-American male, and is a resident
`
`of the United States of America.
`
`4.
`
`The defendant, Tyson Foods, Inc, is a foreign corporation licensed to do business
`
`in the State of Arkansas, and was conducting business in Howard County, Arkansas, at all times
`
`pertinent to this cause of action.
`
`5.
`
`The defendant Tyson Food, Inc. is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.S.
`
`§ 2000e (b), (g), and (h).
`
`6.
`
`The plaintiff was employed by the defendant, Tyson Food, Inc., in Howard County,
`
`Arkansas, as an hourly employee at all times pertinent hereto.
`
`III.
`
`Facts
`
`7.
`
`The plaintiff was hired by the defendant, Tyson Foods, Inc., on October 22, 2018
`
`as a production worker in the Nashville, Arkansas poultry processing plant.
`
`8.
`
`The plaintiff was terminated under the false pretext that he violated the defendant’s
`
`attendance policy on June 10, 2020.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 4
`
`9.
`
`The plaintiff, in his primary position, was responsible for dumping fifty (50) pound
`
`bags of ingredients such as flour and breading for line 8 in the cook room. The plaintiff was
`
`required to wear knee-high, rubber boots and work second shift, Monday through Friday, from
`
`4:30 pm to 1:30 am, and some Saturdays, as production required. On some Saturdays, the plaintiff
`
`would occasionally receive a break from dumping to work on the floor cleaning debris as
`
`instructed.
`
`10.
`
`The plaintiff was told that with good performance he would quickly rotate and
`
`move upward in the company to other positions.
`
`11.
`
`The plaintiff put forth good work performance and dumped between three hundred
`
`(300) and four hundred (400) – fifty (50) pound bags of breading ingredients, per shift, and worked
`
`as many as twenty-one (21)) consecutive days. The job was repetitive and physically demanding,
`
`and predominately performed by African American employees that usually quit after a couple of
`
`months, and the Caucasian employees would quit after two (2) weeks.
`
`12. More than one year elapsed and the plaintiff was never moved to another position
`
`and was the only African American that held the strenuous position for such length of time.
`
`13.
`
`Over the course of about fourteen (14) months, the plaintiff observed that his white
`
`counterparts were moved to other positions with higher pay and better working conditions,
`
`including the blender operator, line lead, ingredients room, and maintenance, on an average of two
`
`(2) weeks after starting in the same position as the plaintiff. The blender operator, line lead,
`
`ingredients room, and maintenance positions were predominately or exclusively held by Caucasian
`
`employees.
`
`14.
`
`The plaintiff began requesting and bidding on the blender operator, line lead, and
`
`ingredients room positions more aggressively.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 5
`
`15.
`
`On or about Saturday, December 14, 2019, the plaintiff was instructed by his line
`
`supervisor, Shane Stone, a Caucasian male, to work in a floor position cleaning up debris and other
`
`contaminants. This position was not a promotion or pay increase, but a breakout from the dumping
`
`position.
`
`16.
`
`As the plaintiff complied with Shane Stone’s instructions, the second shift general
`
`manager, Christopher Singleton, a Caucasian male, ordered the plaintiff to return to the line
`
`position to dump ingredients. The plaintiff respectfully informed Christopher Singleton that he
`
`had been bidding on other positions after working the dump position for more than a year and had
`
`been sent to the floor position by his supervisor, Shane Stone.
`
`17.
`
`Christopher Singleton responded, “There’s the door!”.
`
`18.
`
`The plaintiff returned to the line 8 position and resumed dumping fifty (50) pound
`
`bags of ingredients as ordered.
`
`19.
`
`On or about December 17, 2019, the plaintiff called the corporate hotline and asked
`
`to confidentially report the incident involving Christopher Singleton. The plaintiff reported that
`
`Christopher Singleton spoke to him in a degrading and hostile manner and nearly fired him for
`
`working in another area, although he was instructed to do so by his immediate supervisor and for
`
`mentioning opportunities for him to also move to the other positions he had been bidding on,
`
`considering his experience. At the end of the report, the plaintiff was asked for his badge number.
`
`Believing the report was confidential as requested, the plaintiff gave the corporate representative
`
`his badge number as requested.
`
`20.
`
`On or about December 19, 2019, the plaintiff was summoned to meet with Danette
`
`Walton, the local human resource manager, an African American female. In that meeting, the
`
`plaintiff learned that his report to the hotline was not kept confidential. Danette Walton warned
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 6
`
`the plaintiff that the supervisors knew his identity and the contents of his report, and then asked
`
`him if he was sure he wanted to proceed. The plaintiff declined out of fear of losing his job, since
`
`Christopher Singleton had threatened to fire him a couple of days prior.
`
`21.
`
`On or about, January 8, 2020, Shane Stone, the plaintiff’s line supervisor, instructed
`
`the plaintiff to report to work in the ingredients room, upon the request of Evan Wakefield, the
`
`first shift general manager, a Caucasian male.
`
`22.
`
`The plaintiff, in this position, was required to wear steel toe boots and responsible
`
`for driving forklifts and stand-up jacks to position and transfer heavy pallets of ingredients for use
`
`in the cook room, unload trucks of bulk ingredients, stack heavy pallets at least three levels high,
`
`and remove and replace large waste tanks. The defendant furnished the plaintiff with a one hundred
`
`($100) voucher to purchase a pair of steel toe boots as required for the job. Of the three (3)
`
`employees in the ingredient room, the plaintiff was the only African American, while the other
`
`two employees were Caucasian. The position usually included a pay raise, but the plaintiff did
`
`not receive a pay increase.
`
`23.
`
`The plaintiff worked the ingredients room position for about 7-8 weeks and
`
`obtained certifications for the stand-up jack and the forklift within that time.
`
`24.
`
`On or about February 25, 2020, Chris Singleton ordered the plaintiff back to a line
`
`position to push meat and dump breading ingredients for lines 1-4, under the supervision of Jacob
`
`Renadar, a Hispanic male. The plaintiff was the only employee of his white counterparts ordered
`
`back to line.
`
`25.
`
`The plaintiff’s position in the ingredients room was filled with a Hispanic male.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 7
`
`26.
`
`Soon after returning to the line position, the plaintiff was instructed by line 6
`
`supervisor, Larry, a Caucasian male and former law enforcement officer, to use the stand-up jack
`
`and move pallets of ingredients.
`
`27.
`
`The plaintiff informed Larry that he was wearing rubber boots as required for the
`
`line position and did not have the required steel toe boots to operate the stand-up jack or perform
`
`ingredient room duties. In response, Larry instructed the plaintiff to operate the stand-up jack
`
`anyway.
`
`28.
`
`The plaintiff immediately went to the HR department and reported the issue to
`
`Danette Walton, the HR manager. Walton told the plaintiff that he was correct and called
`
`Christopher Singleton, the second shift general manager, to her office. She explained the situation
`
`and informed him that they were in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Association’s
`
`(“OSHA”) personal protective equipment (“PPE”) safety mandates. In response, Christopher
`
`Singleton told the plaintiff to listen to the supervisor even if it contradicted him.
`
`29.
`
`The plaintiff returned to the line and continued pushing meat and dumping
`
`ingredients, very confused about Christopher Singleton’s statement.
`
`30.
`
`As second shift general Manager, Christopher Singleton, was the managing
`
`supervisor of the plaintiff’s line supervisors, Shane Stone, Larry, and Jacob Renadar, all non-
`
`African Americans. At some point, during the plaintiff’s mistreatment, Shane Stone was moved
`
`to another area.
`
`31.
`
`After receiving notice of the OSHA violation from the HR manager, both
`
`Christopher Singleton and Larry, continued to take turns ordering the plaintiff off and on of the
`
`line position pushing meat and dumping ingredients to perform ingredients room duties operating
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 8
`
`the stand-up jack and other jobs operating the forklift and standup jack that he had not been trained
`
`and did not have the required personal protective equipment for.
`
`32.
`
`Over the course of February, March, and April of 2020, the plaintiff continued to
`
`report the OSHA violations, hostile treatment, and demotion from the ingredients room position
`
`to the human resources manager, Danette Walton. Additionally, the plaintiff reported that the
`
`white employees in the ingredients room did not want to perform the specific tasks of their job
`
`duties, Christopher and Larry refused to make them perform them, and ordered him off the line
`
`placing him in danger to perform them instead. Walton told the plaintiff that she would speak to
`
`the assistant plant manager, Josh King, a Caucasian male, about the matter.
`
`33.
`
`The plaintiff continued to work in a hostile work environment into the month of
`
`June to no avail. Josh King never met with the plaintiff about the matter.
`
`34.
`
`During the weekend of June 6, 2020, the plaintiff became ill and did not report to
`
`work on Monday, June 8 and Tuesday, June 9, 2020.
`
`35.
`
`On Wednesday, June 10, 2010, the plaintiff called the defendant’s designated
`
`phone line well in advance of the start of his shift that began at 4:30 pm to report that he would be
`
`absent, so he would not be in violation of the attendance policy for “no show” after three (3)
`
`consecutive days without calling in.
`
`36.
`
`The plaintiff also contacted his team leader, Diane White, by telephone to inform
`
`her that he would be absent.
`
`37.
`
`At about 4:50 pm on June 10, 2020, Diane White called the plaintiff to inform him
`
`that he was terminated after she reported the plaintiff’s call to his line supervisor, Jacob Renadar,
`
`a Hispanic male.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 9
`
`38.
`
`On June 10, 2020, the plaintiff also called the Human Resource manager, Danette
`
`Walton, who confirmed the plaintiff was terminated that day. Danette Walton further informed
`
`the plaintiff that he was terminated because he went from 8 points to 17 points in violation of the
`
`defendant’s attendance policy.
`
`39.
`
`The defendant’s original version of its attendance policy is based on a point system
`
`that terminates an employee upon 14 unexcused points. Each day absent equals one point. Three
`
`(3) days of consecutive no shows without calling in or a doctor’s excuse constitutes automatic
`
`termination.
`
`40.
`
`Previously, on or about mid-March 2020, the defendant, in response to the
`
`COVID19 pandemic and to mitigate the spread of the highly contagious and deadly disease, issued
`
`an announcement that it had relaxed its attendance policy and informed the plaintiff, along with
`
`all its employees, to stay at home if they were ill, test positive for COVID19 or had been exposed
`
`to COVID19. (A copy of said “Protecting Team Members and Our Company” website
`
`announcement is attached to this complaint and is identified as Plaintiff’s Exhibit “A”)
`
`41.
`
`To the best of plaintiff’s knowledge, there had been no other updates or
`
`modification to the attendance policy and its point system, in particular, when he was terminated.
`
`42.
`
`The defendant issued a statement to media outlets on or about June 2, 2020, the last
`
`week the plaintiff worked at the defendant’s place of employment, that it was reinstating its policy
`
`that penalized absentee workers due to illness, with the exception of COVID19 like symptoms and
`
`illness. (A copy of said “Tyson reinstates policy that penalizes absentee workers” new article
`
`is attached to this complaint and is identified as Plaintiff’s Exhibit “B”)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 10
`
`43.
`
`The plaintiff contends that he had accumulated 11 points by June 10, 2020, well
`
`under the 14-point limit, and was not presented the opportunity to provide information regarding
`
`his absence or illness.
`
`44.
`
`The plaintiff’s last day of actually working was June 5, 2020, and he was not
`
`scheduled to work Saturday, June 6, 2020. He further contends that he would have been terminated
`
`long before June 5, 2020, if the defendant’s HR manager’s calculations were correct.
`
`45.
`
`For nearly two (2) years, the plaintiff performed his job duties in an exemplary
`
`fashion, and received high praise for his performance, work ethic, and dependability until he
`
`pursued other positions with higher pay and working conditions like his white counterparts.
`
`46.
`
`The plaintiff performed his job duties in an exemplary fashion and longer than any
`
`African American in his entry level position, yet only received one (1) pay increase after his 90-
`
`day probation period, one (1) standard annual pay increase, and was denied every opportunity for
`
`promotion and pay increases despite his training, certification on the forklift and stand-up jack,
`
`and performance as an ingredients room worker for 7-8 consecutive weeks and as ordered by
`
`Christopher Singleton and Larry in violation of OSHA.
`
`47.
`
`The plaintiff did not receive a pay increase, compensation, or job title
`
`reclassification, after training, obtaining forklift and stan-up jack certifications, and working as an
`
`ingredients room worker like his colleagues, who are all Caucasians, and received pay increases
`
`effective upon acquiring the position.
`
`48.
`
`Instead, the plaintiff was demoted, subjected to a hostile work environment, placed
`
`in unsafe in violation of OSHA, denied opportunities for promotion and pay raises based on his
`
`race, and retaliated against for reporting the adverse and discriminatory treatment to management
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 11
`
`when he was terminated on June 10, 2020, under the pretext of violating the defendant’s attendance
`
`policy.
`
`49.
`
`On or about June 18, 2020, the plaintiff filed for unemployment benefits with the
`
`Arkansas Division of Workforce Services. The defendant indicated the plaintiff was terminated
`
`due to absenteeism and job abandonment.
`
`50.
`
`On August 31, 2020, the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services issued a Notice
`
`of Agency Determination, in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the plaintiff was terminated “for
`
`reasons beyond his control. The [plaintiff] did make proper notification to the employer. The
`
`[plaintiff’s] actions did not constitute deliberate and willful intent against the best interest of the
`
`employer.” (A copy of said “Notice of Agency Determination” letter is attached to this
`
`complaint and is identified as Plaintiff’s Exhibit “C”)
`
`51.
`
` The defendant did not appeal the decision.
`
`IV.
`
`Causes of Action
`
`52.
`
`The plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraph numbered 1 through
`
`paragraph numbered 50, as though set forth word for word.
`
`53.
`
`The plaintiff was afforded less favorable terms and conditions of his employment
`
`with the defendant, on account of his race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
`
`(as amended), which is codified at 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq.
`
`54.
`
`Furthermore, the plaintiff has been subjected to disparate treatment on account of
`
`his race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), which is codified
`
`at 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 12
`
`55.
`
`The defendant’s supervisors created a hostile work environment for the plaintiff by
`
`threatening to fire him, placing him in unsafe working conditions in violation of OSHA, and
`
`subjecting him to different terms and conditions than his white counterparts on account of his race,
`
`in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), which is codified at 42
`
`U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq.
`
`56.
`
`The defendant’s discriminated against the plaintiff when it demoted and excluded
`
`the plaintiff from promotions within the company to which he was qualified, and failed to
`
`compensate the plaintiff while working in said positions, on account of his race in violation of
`
`Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), which is codified at 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e
`
`et seq.
`
`57.
`
`The defendant’s corporate hotline, Human Resource Manager, and plant manager
`
`allowed the discrimination and subjected the plaintiff to acts of retaliation for exercising his civil
`
`rights to report and protest discriminatory conduct of the defendant’s supervisors and management
`
`by failing to investigate the discriminatory treatment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
`
`Act of 1964 (as amended), which is codified at 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq. and Arkansas Civil
`
`Rights Act (ACRA), A.C.A. 16-123-101, et. Seq.
`
`58.
`
`Due to the plaintiff complaining about acts of discrimination, he was subjected to
`
`acts of retaliation, and was also terminated from his place of employment with the defendant on
`
`June 10, 2020, under the false pretext of him violating the attendance policy, in retaliation for
`
`having complained about discrimination, and due to his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil
`
`Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), which is codified at 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq. and Arkansas
`
`Civil Rights Act (ACRA), A.C.A. 16-123-101, et. Seq..
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 13
`
`59.
`
`The plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies and on November 9, 2020, the
`
`plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination No. 493-2020-01950) with the Equal Employment
`
`Opportunity Commission (EEOC), contending that he had been discriminated against based on his
`
`race when he was subject to different terms and conditions than his white counterparts and
`
`discharged in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination.
`
` (See Charge of
`
`Discrimination attached herein as Plaintiff’s Exhibit “D”).
`
`60.
`
`In response to the Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination (No. 493-2020-01950) that
`
`he filed with the EEOC, said agency issued him a “Dismissal and Notice of Rights” letter dated
`
`December 3, 2020, which inter alia gave the plaintiff the right to sue the defendant within 90 days
`
`from the date he received the above-mentioned letter. (A copy of said “Notice of Right to
`
`Sue” letter is attached to this complaint and is identified as Plaintiff’s Exhibit “E”).
`
`61.
`
`This cause of action is being brought within ninety (90) days of the plaintiff
`
`receiving his right-to-sue letter as referenced in paragraph 60 of this complaint.
`
`V.
`
`Damages
`
`62.
`
`Due to the above-mentioned acts of discrimination, the plaintiff has suffered mental
`
`anguish, embarrassment, lost wages, front pay, back pay, loss of medical coverage, other
`
`employment benefits, increased healthcare costs, all in a manner to be proven at trial.
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff further reserves the right to amend this Complaint and to allege other
`
`federal and state law claims.
`
`VI.
`
`Jury Demand
`
`48. The plaintiff requests that this matter be tried before a jury of twelve (12) fair and
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 14
`
`impartial citizens of this state.
`
`THEREFORE, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief for the above mentioned
`
`described unlawful employment practices:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`declare that the plaintiff has been subjected to unlawful discriminatory practices;
`
`restored to the plaintiff’s position with back pay, seniority, pension contributions,
`
`fringe benefits, etc., which he would have enjoyed had it not been for the wrongful
`
`termination or reinstatement at the defendant’s Texarkana facility;
`
`c.
`
`reinstatement;
`
`d.
`
`punitive and compensatory damages;
`
`e.
`
`the cost of prosecuting this action;
`
`f.
`
`attorney’s fees;
`
`g.
`
`and for all other equitable, legal, and just relief.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Angilynn Taylor
` Bar Number 2006212
` Law Office of Angilynn Taylor, P.A.
`718 s Main St, Ste B
`Hope, Arkansas 71801
`Telephone: 844.264.4529
`Facsimile: 844.264.1800
`E-mail: Ataylor@ataylorlawoffice.com
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Angilynn Taylor, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading was
`electronically filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Western District of
`Arkansas - Texarkana Division, on the 4th day of March 2021, using the CM/ECF system, which
`is designed to send notification of such filing to the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`C T Corporation System
`124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1900
`Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
`
`/s/Angilynn Taylor
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`3/3/2021
`
`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 16
`Case 4:21-cv-O4012-SOH Documamgausmeuednaiomean FRagiecis of 23 PageID #: 16
`
`Home
`
`l News
`
`l News Releases
`
`sure H a m
`
`March 17, 2020
`
`Protecting Team Members and Our Company;
`Ensuring Business Continuity
`
`Note: The following is a message from Tyson Foods CEO Noel White to
`the company’s team members.
`
`Springdale, Ark. -- Mar. 17, 2020 -— Protecting team members and ensuring the continuity of our
`
`business are essential as we continue efforts to address COVlD—ig (coronavirus). We’ve been
`
`actively monitoring this situation and are continually adjusting our approach as we learn more
`
`about the spread of this virus.
`
`Tyson Foods’ roie as America’s largest food company is critical, so ensuring we’re able to
`
`continue producing food is essentiai. That’s why we’re taking additional measures to protect our
`
`people and our company.
`
`Travel
`
`Social distancing —- avoiding mass gatherings and maintaining distance from others when
`
`possible __ can help people avoid the virus. That’s why Tyson Foods has implemented travel
`
`restrictions Late last month Tyson Foods suspended all international business travel on
`
`commercial carriers“ Effective immediateiy, we are suspending all US. commercial business
`
`travei. Exceptions must be approved by an Enterprise Leadership Team (ELT) member,
`
`For the same precautionary reasons, we encourage you to avoid personal travel via cruise ships,
`
`airpianes and other common carriers.
`
`Depending on where you travei, you may be subject to seif—quarantine for 14 days when you
`
`return. You should consider this and your ability to work remotely before traveling.
`
`Visitors
`
`
`men we insect or: ii :
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://www.tysonfoods.com/news/news-releases/2020/3/protecting-team-members-and-our—company—e nsuring—business—continuity
`
`1/3
`
`

`

`3/3/2021
`
`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 17
`Case 4:21-cv-O4012-SOH Docmmlggusinguedtm Fri—86398015 0f 23 PageID #1 17
`
`VVC It G’JU llllplClHCllLHiH LIICUEHCD LU ”CIR llUuIly lCQHl HICHIUCID, HILIUUUIB.
`
`- Relaxing attendance policies in our plants by eliminating any punitive effect for missing
`work due to illness.
`
`. Waiving the 5 consecutive day waiting period for Short Term Disability benefits.
`
`- Waiving the co—pay, co—insurance and deductible for doctor visits for COVID~19 testing as
`
`well as eliminating ore—approval or preauthorization steps.
`
`0 Waiving co—pays for the use of telemeciicine.
`
`. Relaxing refill limits for 30 day prescriptions of maintenance medication.
`
`Working Remotely
`
`in order to protect the health of our team members and ensure we can continue to support our
`
`food production supply chain; many team members in our US. corporate office locations will
`
`work remotely through March 27.
`
`To ensure business continuity, management will determine what critical business personnel will
`
`be asked to continue working in the corporate offices while others operate from home. Your
`
`manager will inform you of your status. Those who work remotely will be expected to workjust
`
`as they do when in our corporate offices.
`
`Food Safety
`
`I want to remind you that COViD~19 is not considered a food safety concern. The CDC
`
`SAYS “currently there is no evidence to support transmission of COViD—19 associated with
`
`food.” USDA REPORTS “There is no evidence at this time to suggest that the Coronavirus is a
`
`foodborne pathogen.” According to a STATEMENT FROM THE FDA, “we are not aware of any
`
`reports at this time of human illnesses that suggest COVlD~19 can be transmitted by food or food
`packaging.”
`
`Additional Adjustments
`
`We have a cross—sectional team of leaders meeting frequently to stay on top of the coronavirus
`
`outbreak. Since it’s an ever-evolving matter, we will continue to adapt and adjust our approach
`as needed.
`
`Thank you for your patience and cooperation as we work together through this unique situation.
`
`
`roar privacy is has? ii to as
`«vs
`an“ “more *iaeii tiger to toe
`
`r‘“"::~1 m)“.
`"A. we ‘
`'1:
`.5
`‘r _r
`n “
`W;
`'a,
`;_
`V
`a
`I?“ j, 25* gar-ES it Mr 3w;
`,
`
`
`
`{tits} iitfi'fié We: LC»
`new :
`=
`$3.52
`3 Vi‘f‘iéax a
`Eds r was: yitélgkiixf Elm: w»
`.
`
`ices-ire More
`
`accept
`
`https://www.tysonfoods.com/news/news—releases/2020/3/protecting—team-members—and-our-company-ensuring-business-continuity
`
`2/3
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 18
`3/3/2021 Case 4:21-cv-O4012-SOH DocumemageuserHmrQRz/swfls’lan FBflgaméU 01‘ 23 PageID #2 18
`
`
`
`Copyright 2018 Tyson Foods, Inc. Trademarks and registered trademarks.
`
`Privacy Poficy I Terms oste I Legal
`
`I CTSCA I Do Not Sen My Personal Information
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2%
`
`
`
`https://www.tysonfoods.com/news/news—releases/2020/3/protecting-team-members-and-our-company-ensuring—business-continuity
`
`3/3
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: 19
`Case 4:21-cv-O4012-SOH Document 2
`Filed 03/04/21 Page 18 of 23 PagelD #: 19
`Tyson reinstates policy that penalizes absentee workers
`
`3/2/2021
`
`The Detroit News
`
`BUSINESS .
`
`Tyson reinstates policy that penalizes
`absentee workers
`
`Deena Shanker and Jen Skerritt Bloomberg
`Published 2:13 pm. ET Jun. 3, 2020 l Updated 2:20 pm. ET Jun. 3, 2020
`
`Tyson Foods Inc., the biggest U.S. meat processor, will return to its pre—coronavirus absentee
`
`policy, which includes punishing employees for missing work due to illness. Workers with
`
`Covid-19 symptoms won’t be penalized, the company said.
`
`“We’re reinstating our standard attendance policy,” Tyson spokesperson Gary Mickelson said
`
`in an email. “But our position on Covid-19 has not changed: Workers who have symptoms of
`
`the virus or have tested positive will continue to be asked to stay home and will not be
`
`penalized. They will also continue to qualify for short-term disability pay so they can
`
`continue to be paid while they’re sick.”
`
`In mid-March, Tyson said that it was “relaxing attendance policies in our plants by
`
`eliminating any punitive effect for missing work due to illness.” That will no longer be the
`
`case, as the company shifts back to its usual policy that discourages absenteeism through a
`
`point system.
`
`Some of America’s largest meat suppliers reopened plants recently after a wave of
`
`coronavirus outbreaks forced temporarily closures in April, withering available supplies at
`
`grocery stores and driving up retail prices for beef and pork. While companies have taken
`
`measures such as increasing hand-washing stations, distributing face shields and doing
`
`temperature checks, experts and unions warn that workers are still being put in harm’s way
`
`in the name of food security as packers seek to boost output.
`
`Workers absenteeism has been high in some U.S. plants not just because employees are sick.
`
`Some are afraid to come in for shifts because of fears they will catch the virus. Under Tyson’s
`
`policy, staying home for fear of exposure could result in punitive measures.
`
`Physical distancing is nearly impossible in plants that operate processing lines at very fast
`
`speeds. There have been at least 44 meatpacking worker deaths and over 3,0 0
`
`https:l/www.detroitnews.com/storylbusiness/2020/06/O3/tyson-reinstates—policy-penalizes-absentee-workersH11902502/
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04012-SOH Document 2 Filed 03/04/21 Page 19 of 23 PageID #: 20
`Case 4:21-cv-O4012-SOH Document 2
`Filed 03/04/21 Page 19 of 23 PagelD #: 20
`Tyson relnstates policy that penalizes absentee workers
`
`3/2/2021
`
`testing positive for Covid-19, according to estimates from United Food & Commercial
`
`Workers International Union.
`
`“It is irresponsible to move away from strong protections, paid sick leave, and attendance
`
`policies that support worker well-being and public health goals,” said Mary Beth Gallagher,
`
`executive director of Investor Advocates for Social Justice. “Instead, it appears the incentives
`
`and attendance policies further business objectives that may be out of step with keeping
`
`workers safe.”
`
`Tyson reiterated that its “position on Covid—19 has not changed,” in an emailed statement.
`
`“Team members who test positive for the Virus or have Covid—19 symptoms receive paid leave
`
`and may return to work only when they’ve met the criteria established by both the CDC and
`
`Tyson.”
`
`On Tuesday, Tyson confirmed 591 positive Covid—19 cases out of 2,303 tested employees at
`
`its Storm Lake, Iowa, plant, which was shuttered last week. Limited production at the facility
`
`will resume on June 3, the company said, while separately confirming 224 positive cases out
`
`of its 1,483 employees at its Council Bluffs, Iowa plant.
`
`Mickelson also noted the steps the company has taken to slow the spread of the virus at its
`
`plants. Th