Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE-LAW CLAIMS—5th Cir.: Claim of negligence in protection from COVID-19 revived against Tyson Foods, (Aug 27, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun J.D.

“The scope of preemption under the PPIA is a novel issue of law for this circuit, and there is an intra-district court split.”

Reversing the district court’s dismissal of one of the claims made by the estate of a poultry manufacturing plant worker who died from COVID-19, the Fifth Circuit ruled that state-law negligence claims against Tyson Foods were not preempted by the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). A coworker of the deceased had tested positive for COVID-19 but continued to work at the plant after testing positive. The estate argued that their loved one contracted COVID-19 and died as a result of negligence by the company and others in preventing the spread of the disease in the workplace. On other claims against the plant managers and the coworker, the court affirmed the district court, and those claims were denied or dismissed (Williams v. Wingrove, No. 24-40531 (5th Cir. Aug. 26, 2025)).

State negligence claim. The federal PPIA regulates the processing, inspection, distribution, labeling, and sale of poultry products sold in interstate commerce. The PPIA has an express preemption clause providing that “[r]equirements within the scope of this chapter with respect to premises, facilities and operations of any official establishment which are in addition to, or different than those made under this chapter may not be imposed by any State...” 21 U.S.C. § 467e.

According to the court, “The scope of preemption under the PPIA is a novel issue of law for this circuit, and there is an intra-district court split.” The court noted that workplace safety regulations may exist that implicate food safety and that are preempted by the PPIA. However, Tyson made no argument that there is a connection between the duty to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and food product safety. Calling Tyson’s lack of such an argument “fatal,” the court ruled that district court erred in dismissing the state law negligence claims against Tyson as preempted. The court also vacated the district court’s denial of leave to amend.

Plant managers. The court agreed with the district court in its analysis of the claims against the plant manager and plant safety manager. The allegation was that they “were directly responsible for implementing a safe work environment” at the facility and breached an independent duty of care to prevent the spread of contagious disease. However, the court noted that there was no duty to prevent the spread of disease by the managers, and no contractual obligation to provide medical care. Since no cognizable claim existed against the managers, the court held that they were improperly joined, affirming the district court’s denial of the motion to remand.

Coworker. The court also held that the coworker “had no individual duty to prevent the spread of disease” and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against him. The argument was made that Texas law establishes that the coworker breached his individual duty to prevent the spread of disease, but the court noted that the Supreme Court of Texas case cited, Missouri, K. & T. Railway Co. v. Wood, imposed the duty not on the employee, but on the employer. The court wrote: “Functionally, in the 123 years since the Supreme Court of Texas issued its decision, Wood has never led to any other decision holding that an individual duty to prevent the spread of disease exists, and the Plaintiffs cite to no other case that adopts an individual duty. We decline to stretch Wood beyond its specific facts.”

The case is No. 24-40531.

Judge: Dennis, J.

Attorneys: Joshua D. Lee (Armstrong Lee & Baker) for Lorie Williams, David Williams, Jr., and Ryan Williams. Michael R. Huston (Perkins Coie) for Riley Wingrove and Tyson Foods, Inc.

Companies: Tyson Foods, Inc.

Cases: StateLawClaims Covid19 TortClaims Safety Procedure LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews