Hayslett v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
| Docket Number | 1:22-cv-1123-STA-jay |
| Decision Date | 25 May 2023 |
| Parties | REDINA HAYSLETT, Plaintiff, v. TYSON FOODS, INC. and its wholly owned subsidiary, THE HILLSHIRE BRANDS COMPANY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART
Before the Court is Defendants Tyson Foods, Inc. and The Hillshire Brands Company's Motion to Dismiss in Part (ECF No. 30) filed February 17, 2023. Defendants seek the dismissal of Plaintiff Redina Hayslett's claims under Tenn. Code Ann § 14-2-102(a), Tennessee's statutory protection for individuals who harbor an objection to taking a COVID-19 vaccine. Plaintiff has responded in opposition, and Defendants have filed a reply. The Attorney General and Reporter of the State of Tennessee has filed a brief in defense of the Tennessee law, in response to which Defendants have also filed a brief. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss in Part is DENIED.
Plaintiff filed her Complaint (ECF No. 9) on June 9, 2022. For purposes of deciding Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion, the Court accepts as true the following well-pleaded facts from the Complaint. Plaintiff had worked on a production line in Defendants' Newbern, Tennessee pork processing plant since 1996. Compl. ¶ 7. Other than taking a few days off as she recovered from surgery in 2019, Plaintiff had a perfect attendance record over nearly 26 years of service. Id. ¶ 9. On August 3, 2021, Defendants announced to all employees that as a condition of continued employment and in the absence of documented and approved reasonable accommodations for disability or sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances, all U.S.-based Tyson employees would be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to provide proof of vaccination. Id. ¶ 10. Employees, including Plaintiff, had to submit proof of vaccination no later than November 1, 2021. Id. ¶ 11.
When Plaintiff requested a religious accommodation, Defendants offered her up to one year of absence without pay that would commence November 1, 2021. Id. ¶ 15. Defendants explained to Plaintiff that her other options were taking the vaccine or termination. Id. ¶ 16. After Defendants refused Plaintiff's request for an alternative accommodation, id. ¶ 17, Plaintiff elected to take the unpaid leave of absence, effective November 1, 2021. Id. ¶ 18. In May 2022, Plaintiff notified Defendants she no longer wanted to remain on unpaid leave and requested a return to work. Id. ¶ 20. Defendants refused her request to come back without first receiving the vaccine. Id. ¶ 21. Based on these factual premises, the Complaint alleges that Defendants have terminated or constructively terminated Plaintiff's employment in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-2-102(a).
On October 22, 2022, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the initial Complaint, holding that Plaintiff had stated a plausible claim under Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-2-102(a). The Court concluded Defendants had taken “adverse action” against Plaintiff after the law had taken effect because Plaintiff alleged Defendants had terminated her employment in May 2022. In seeking the dismissal of the claim, Defendants had argued that Plaintiff could not obtain relief based on her unpaid leave, which began November 1, 2021, eleven days before Title 14 became the law in Tennessee. The Complaint, however, alleged that Defendants had terminated Plaintiff after the law's effective date. The Court went on to hold in the alternative that even if the Complaint could be read to allege unpaid leave as the only adverse action Plaintiff had suffered, that would suffice to state a claim pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-2-102(a). Defendants' unpaid leave policy may have begun before the law's effective date. However, the unpaid leave was an ongoing adverse action and continued beyond the effective date of the law. Therefore, the original Complaint stated a plausible Title 14 claim.
On October 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24), adding an allegation that Defendants had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of her religion.
In their Motion to Dismiss in Part, Defendants argue that federal law preempts Tennessee's COVID law and therefore the statute is unconstitutional. Defendants cite an April 28, 2020 Executive Order issued by the President of the United States as well as guidance from the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). In Defendants' view, the Executive Order bound meat and poultry processors like Defendants to take all steps to continue their operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The President acted in response to orders issued in some states that meat and poultry processors suspend operations to curb outbreaks of COVID-19 among employees at processing plants. The Executive Order and the CDC and OSHA guidance on which the Executive Order were based preempt Tennessee's attempt to set a different policy on COVID-19 and its impact on Defendants' meat processing operations in the State of Tennessee.
Defendants further argue that the Federal Meat Inspection Act (“FMIA”) preempts Tennessee's Title 14. The FMIA contains an express preemption provision, stating that the Act precludes state lawmaking on any matter “within the scope” of the FMIA. Defendants argue that the test is whether the federal government could have adopted “the requirement at issue,” presumably a reference to mandatory worker vaccination. In support of their position, Defendants point to the FMIA's implementing regulations addressed to employee hygiene and infectious disease. Defendants contend that because the USDA has adopted regulations to control “infectious disease,” Tennessee's regulation on proof of vaccination falls “within the scope” of the FMIA. Therefore, the Court should hold that the FMIA expressly preempts Tenn. Code Ann. § 14-2-102(a).
Upon filing its Motion to Dismiss in Part, Defendants served notice on the Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, showing that Defendants challenged the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute. On March 22, 2023, the Court granted (ECF No. 38) the State of Tennessee's motion to intervene. The State has now responded in opposition (ECF No. 40) to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Part. According to the State, Defendants have not shown how the Executive Order preempts Title 14's anti-discrimination provision. Title 14 does not directly conflict with the Executive Order. Defendants have not shown that they cannot comply with both the Executive Order and Title 14 or that Title 14 is an obstacle to the Executive Order. To the extent that Defendants have argued that the Executive Order intended to occupy the entire field of meat processing operations, the Executive Order cuts against Defendants' argument. The Executive Order delegated authority to the Secretary of Agriculture. However, the Executive Order specifically excluded a delegation of authority to compel performance of “contracts of employment.” The State contends that this facet of the Executive Order does not suggest an intent to occupy a field to the exclusion of state regulation.
The State of Tennessee goes on to argue that the FMIA does not preempt Title 14. The FMIA “protects consumers from adulterated meat products” and not “workers from infectious disease.” State's Br. 8 (ECF No. 40). The “infectious disease” regulations cited by Defendants have as their purpose the safe handling and processing of meat, not the protection of meat processing workers. Defendants have not shown that their vaccine mandate was necessary to prevent the adulteration of meat. The State lastly points out that Defendants have since lifted their vaccine mandate.
A defendant may move to dismiss a claim “for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must treat all of the well-pleaded allegations of the pleadings as true and construe all of the allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Elec. Merchant Sys. LLC v. Gaal, 58 F.4th 877, 882 (6th Cir. 2023) (citing Taylor v. City of Saginaw, 922 F.3d 328, 331 (6th Cir. 2019)). However, legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences need not be accepted as true. Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289, 294 (6th Cir. 2022) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)).
Defendants argue that federal law preempts Plaintiff's claim under Tennessee law. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that “the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ., any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. “The phrase ‘Laws of the United States' encompasses both federal statutes themselves and federal regulations that are properly adopted in accordance with statutory authorization.” In re Ford Motor Co. F-150 & Ranger Truck Fuel Econ. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 65 F.4th 851, 859 (6th Cir. 2023) (quoting City of New York v. F.C.C., 486 U.S. 57, 63, 108 S.Ct. 1637, 100 L.Ed.2d 48 (1988)). This simply means “state laws that ‘interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of congress, made in pursuance of the constitution' are invalid.” Wis. Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 604, 111 S.Ct. 2476, 115 L.Ed.2d 532 (1991) ).
The Supreme Court has adopted what it has described as “two cornerstones” of its “preemption...
To continue reading
Request your trial