Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE STATUS—M.D. Ga.: Poultry producer’s minimum wage, overtime claims against Perdue fail; outside limitations period, (Mar 23, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

Through his FLSA claims and claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff sought to overhaul the poultry-growing industry by changing how growers are viewed when it comes to employment classification and wages.

A poultry farmer’s challenge to the Poultry Producer Agreements used by Perdue, which explicitly stated it was not an employment contract, failed on his claim he was entitled to various benefits and wages he hasn’t received, ruled a federal district court in Georgia. The plaintiff had asserted that he was one of Perdue’s employees rather than an independent contractor. Here, the plaintiff failed to meet his burden to show that his claims fell within the limitations period provided by the FLSA. Thus, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to come forward with any evidence that might allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Perdue had some sort of notice that the practices it has used with growers might have actually violated the FLSA (Parker v. Perdue Foods LLC, No. 5:22-cv-00268-TES (M.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2026)).

Poultry producer agreements. Perdue is what’s known as an integrated poultry company. It owns hatcheries and breeding flocks, and it consigns or “integrates” its baby chicks with independent farmers or “growers” who, on their own farms, are responsible for raising them to the desired weight. These business relationships are governed by contracts called Poultry Producer Agreements (PPAs). The PPAs explicitly state that each agreement is a “service contract and not a contract of employment” and that Perdue and each grower “are each independent contractors.”

Farmers under a PPA have the right, the ability, or the choice to hire their own employees, and this hired help can perform all or some of the work that accompanies raising chickens. Farmers may also participate in diversified farming by growing other crops or livestock—so long as that other livestock isn’t poultry. Farmers may also work at or operate an outside business and even own multiple farms to increase their profits.

Perdue pays the farmers under a competitive tournament system, meaning greater compensation goes to farmers who grow birds more efficiently through tier upgrades to their chicken houses, effective bird husbandry, and other “best management practices.”

Beginning in June 2006, the plaintiff signed his first PPA that would allow him to start growing chickens for Perdue. From 2009, with occasional assistance from hired farmhands, the plaintiff grew chickens on two farms. In 2015, he handed operations of one of the farms over to his son. At that point he only raised chickens at his remaining farm. In December 2016, the plaintiff signed his final PPA with Perdue. On the front page of the PPA, in bold, underlined, italicized and capitalized font, the plaintiff agreed that “additional large capital investments may be required of producer during the term of the agreement.”

Animal welfare concerns. When Perdue visited the plaintiff’s farm for flock inspection, it noticed that he repeatedly failed to maintain his equipment and facilities in safe operating condition. According to Perdue, these failures amounted to a direct violation of the farmer’s PPA obligations and led to significant animal welfare concerns. After reminding the plaintiff of everything he agreed to, Perdue advised him that it would not place more chickens on his farm until he made the necessary repairs.

Following a certified letter in February 2019, the plaintiff completed some, but not all, of the necessary repairs. So, in the spring of 2019, Perdue consigned two more flocks with the plaintiff. Soon after delivering the chickens, Perdue saw that welfare concerns continued due to ineffective and inoperable equipment and poor ventilation and heating in the plaintiff’s chicken houses.

In June 2019, Perdue tried placing one last flock with the plaintiff, but in less than a month, it found that the plaintiff had failed to make necessary repairs. On August 5, 2019, Perdue collected its last flock, paid the plaintiff what he was due, and never placed any additional chickens on his farm.

The plaintiff, a poultry farmer, raised broiler chickens for Perdue for 13 years. He argued that considering the level of control Perdue exercised over his farming operations as one of its chicken growers, he was entitled to various benefits and wages he did not receive. According to the plaintiff, Perdue controlled everything from the height of the grass around his barns; to the temperature of the chicken houses; to how many times he had to walk through the chicken houses each day to check on the birds; and to the preparations he had to undertake for the chickens to be delivered and caught, among other things.

When it came to the plaintiff’s work schedule between flocks, he says Perdue had a regimen for that too. Perdue allegedly required the plaintiff, on his own dime, to clean and sanitize the chicken houses for delivery of the next placement of chickens. And, on top of that, Perdue even had processes in place that made him clean out feeder pans and flush water lines for the next flock of incoming chickens.

USDA involvement. In 2017, the plaintiff noticed weight discrepancies. He says that the weight reflected for his chickens was “somebody else’s chickens from another farm.” He thought Perdue was cheating him when it came to bird weight because weight directly impacts how much Perdue has to pay a grower. He mentioned his concerns to Perdue. Thereafter, he requested the “statistical information and data” Perdue relied upon “to determine [his] compensation.” The plaintiff ultimately got the USDA involved and Perdue ended up paying him his “six-flock average.” According to the plaintiff, after the USDA’s involvement Perdue did everything it could to make his life miserable and essentially ousted him as one of its growers by withholding chickens unless he made costly upgrades to his farm.

Wage claims. To right Perdue’s alleged wrongs, the plaintiff asserted that he was one of its employees rather than an independent contractor. He sought remuneration for minimum wage and overtime violations under the FLSA. According to the plaintiff, from 2009 to 2019, he regularly put in 50-60 hours every week, but Perdue did not pay him as required by the FLSA’s overtime provision. The plaintiff also asserted state law claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.

Perdue filed a motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s wage claims. According to Perdue, the plaintiff filed his FLSA claims too late.

Limitations period. The plaintiff failed to meet his burden to show that his claims fell within the limitations period provided by the FLSA. August 5, 2019, was the operative date when Perdue collected its last flock. Post-August 5, 2019, Perdue never placed another chicken on the plaintiff’s farm, so when applying the two-year limitations period from the FLSA, his minimum wage and overtime claims are “forever barred” since he filed this lawsuit on July 22, 2022.

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish “willfulness” to bring his FLSA claims under the three-year period. The plaintiff cited a memorandum from the United States Small Business Administration and argued that the memorandum was enough to put Perdue on notice that its practices violated the FLSA. However, the memorandum dealt with specific SBA loan programs and how growers, like the plaintiff, receive financial assistance through government-guaranteed loans—not about whether integrator-grower relationships run afoul of the FLSA. Thus, the memorandum was not enough to prove willfulness.

With no evidence of willfulness to extend the FLSA’s limitations period to three years, the plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof on this issue, and his FLSA claims for minimum wage and overtime are “forever barred.” Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to Perdue on his FLSA claims.

The case is No. 5:22-cv-00268-TES.

Judge: Self, T., III.

Attorneys: Amanda Vaughn (Fairmark Partners) for Roger Parker. Kevin Hishta (Ogletree Deakins) for Perdue Foods LLC.

Companies: Perdue Foods LLC

Cases: WageHour MinimumWage Overtime Procedure GeorgiaNews