Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, CLASS ACTIONS—D. Colo.: More meat processors agree to settle multi-defendant antitrust class alleging a conspiracy to fix wages, (Oct 20, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The court has already preliminarily approved settlements with 13 other defendants for a combined $201 million.

In a class action suit alleging that 15 red meat processors and several of their subsidiaries conspired to fix and depress the wages paid to their workers in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, of which several of the defendants had already entered into settlement agreements, a federal district court in Colorado granted preliminary approval of settlement agreements in which Agri Beef Co. and Washington Beef, LLC (the Agri Beef defendants) and Indiana Packers Corporation will pay into the settlement funds $1.4M and $1.1M, respectively. The settlement class met Rule 23(a)’s numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements, and the class representatives will “fairly and adequately” protect the interests of the class, ruled the court (Brown v. JBS USA Food Company, No. 22-cv-02946-PAB-STV (D. Colo. Oct. 16, 2025)).

Antitrust lawsuit. Two employees brought this lawsuit against 15 red meat processors and several of their subsidiaries which they claimed collectively produced more than 80 percent of beef and pork sold to consumers throughout the United States. The plaintiffs alleged that, beginning by at least January 2000 and continuing to the present day, the defendants conspired with each other to fix and depress the compensation paid to employees at red meat processing plants in the continental U.S. in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Prior settlements. On February 27, 2024, the court preliminarily approved four other settlement agreements with defendants Perdue Farms, Inc., Triumph Foods, LLC, Seaboard Foods, LLC, and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company, Inc. Later, on January 15, 2025, the court preliminarily approved settlements with JBS USA Food Company, Tyson Foods, Inc., American Foods Group, LLC, National Beef Packing Co., LLC, Cargill, Inc., Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., Hormel Foods Corp., Rochelle Foods, LLC, and Quality Pork Processors, Inc.

Proposed agreements. The plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary approval of class settlements sought certification of a class of “[a]ll persons employed by Defendant Processors, their subsidiaries, and/or related entities at beef-processing or pork processing plants in the continental United States from January 1, 2000 until February 27, 2024” (the date the court first preliminarily approved a settlement in this action). The settlements currently before the court required the Agri Beef defendants to pay into the settlement funds $1,400,000 and the Indiana Packers to pay $1,100,000. They would also be required to cooperate in various ways, including producing structured compensation data on members of the class they each employed.

Numerosity. Plaintiffs stated that the proposed settlement classes would likely include tens of thousands of persons, which the court found sufficient to meet the Rule 23(a)(1) requirement that the class membership be sufficiently large to warrant a class action because the alternative of joinder is impracticable. Although plaintiffs did not provide an exact estimate, the number of class members was ascertainable since identifying class members would not “necessitate delving into individualized or subjective determination.” While the sheer number of class members does not create a presumption of numerosity, the Tenth Circuit has found fewer potential claimants could satisfy numerosity.

Commonality. The Tenth Circuit has acknowledged that “price-fixing affects all market participants, creating an inference of class-wide impact even when prices are individually negotiated.”

Here, a conspiracy to fix wages would affect all employees regardless of individual wage negotiations because plaintiffs allege that defendants’ “anticompetitive conduct affected the entire market.” Therefore, the court found that there were questions common to the class as required by Rule 23(a)(2).

Typicality. The plaintiffs also met the Rule 23(a)(3) typicality requirement. As another district court has held, “[in conspiracy cases, the plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the class because the claims all depend on proof of the antitrust violation by the defendants, not on the plaintiffs’ individual positions.”

Adequacy of the representation. The plaintiffs next met the Rule 23(a)(4) requirement that the interests of the class be fairly and adequately protected by the class representative and their counsel. The representatives’ interests were aligned with those of the proposed settlement class because they sought relief for injuries arising out of the same conspiracy and were also subject to the same harm—anti-competitive wages. There was also no evidence of any conflict of interest, and the proposed class counsel had been functioning as interim co-lead counsel for over two years.

Rule 23(b)(3) predominance. Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement was also met. “Proof of a conspiracy between defendants is a question that goes to the alleged antitrust violation common to the entire class,” concluded the court. Moreover, “[e]vidence of market wages and any depression across the wages of defendants’ employees is a common question that goes to the alleged injury,” and while individual damages might vary, “the question of what competitive market wages should have been will be common to the class.” Thus, because class members would receive the same type of relief and have claims that present common questions of fact and law, the class questions predominate over individual questions and the settlement class is a superior method of resolving this litigation.

Rule 23(e) factors. The proposed settlement agreements also met the Rule 23(e) requirement that they be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” The negotiations were conducted fairly and honestly, and there was serious disagreement by the parties about whether defendants illegally conspired to depress the compensation of workers for defendant meat processors. The value of immediate recovery also outweighed the mere possibility of future relief. Finally, plaintiffs’ counsel has extensive experience in antitrust litigation and states that the settlement agreements are fair and reasonable.

Class notice. The court previously approved the proposed notice schedule and plan regarding the 2024 and 2025 settlements on May 6, 2025, and notice had been scheduled to begin on October 13. However, rather than sending out those previously approved notices, plaintiffs requested that the court approve a notice plan that mentioned all settlements, with notice to begin on November 12. Plaintiffs claimed that the “revised, proposed notice documents mirror the notices already approved by this Court, but merely update their contents with notice of these additional settlements.”

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in its prior order approving the notice documents and proposed schedule regarding the 2024 and 2025 settlements, the court found that plaintiffs’ plan to provide notice was reasonably calculated to apprise absent class members of the action. And because the Agri Beef and Indiana Packers defendants had reached a settlement agreement, the court stayed the proceedings against those defendants.

The case is No. 22-cv-02946-PAB-STV.

Judge: Brimmer, P.

Attorneys: Abby R. Wolf (Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro) for Ron Brown and Minka Garmon. Christian T. Becker (Kasowitz) for JBS USA Food Co. Abigail W, Williams (Simpson Thacher & Bartlett) for Tyson Foods, Inc. Holly Ann Ovington (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr) for Cargill, Inc. and Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. Robert C. Gallup (Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath) for Hormel Foods Corp. and Rochelle Foods, LLC. David Leonard Hashmall (Felhaber Larson Fenlon & Vogt) for American Foods Group, LLC. Abraham James Spung (Husch Blackwell) for Triumph Foods, LLC. Chad David Williams (Davis Graham & Stubbs) for Seaboard Foods, LLC. Benjamin G. Bradshaw (O'Melveny & Myers) for National Beef Packing Co., LLC. Amy Beth Manning (McGuireWoods) for Smithfield Foods, Inc. Emilee Lauren Hargis (Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner) for Agri Beef Co. and Washington Beef, LLC. Danielle R. Foley (Venable) for Perdue Farms, Inc. Jason David Stitt (Kutak Rock) for Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc. Britt Marie Miller (Mayer Brown) for Indiana Packers Corp. and Quality Pork Processors, Inc. Peter H. Walsh (Hogan Lovells US) for Agri Stats, Inc. Gerard P. Martin (Rosenberg Martin Greenberg) for Webber, Meng, Sahl and Co., Inc. dba WMS & Co., Inc.

Companies: JBS USA Food Co.; Tyson Foods, Inc.; Cargill, Inc.; Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.; Hormel Foods Corp.; Rochelle Foods, LLC; American Foods Group, LLC; Triumph Foods, LLC; Seaboard Foods, LLC; National Beef Packing Co., LLC; Smithfield Foods, Inc. and Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp.; Agri Beef Co.; Washington Beef, LLC; Perdue Farms, Inc.; Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc.; Indiana Packers Corp.; Quality Pork Processors, Inc.; Agri Stats, Inc.; Webber, Meng, Sahl and Co., Inc.; WMS & Co., Inc.

Cases: ClassActions StateLawClaims TortClaims WageHour RemediesDamages ColoradoNews