PERDUE FOODS LLC
11 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2017–2026)
3 trusted published court opinions across 3 distinct cases · 4 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list PERDUE FOODS LLC as an employer in 11 distinct federal employment cases between 2017 and 2026.
The most common claims on record were Wrongful Termination and Wage Theft.
Cases were filed across 3 states, most often in DE.
These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Written decisions across 3 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
PERDUE FOODS LLC appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Franceschi-Rodriguez v. Perdue Foods, LLC (2026) — Plaintiff Win. Franceschi-Rodriguez, an employee at Perdue Foods, sought disability benefits after being injured on the job. An earlier board denied his claim for ongoing temporary disability payments. He appealed to the Delaware Superior Court, arguing that his injuries left him unable to work. Read the ruling.
Tripp v. Perdue Foods LLC (2024) — Defendant Win. An employee sued Perdue Foods LLC, claiming the company illegally classified them as an independent contractor rather than an employee, resulting in wage theft and wrongful termination. The employee believed this misclassification allowed Perdue to avoid paying required wages and benefits. Read the ruling.
PARKER v. PERDUE FARMS INC (2024) — Defendant Win. Parker filed a lawsuit against Perdue Foods, claiming the company violated federal wage laws and wrongfully terminated his employment. He wanted to turn the case into a collective action—meaning other workers in similar situations could join and sue together—to address alleged wage theft issues. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Wrongful Termination, Wage Theft. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Wrongful Termination and Wage Theft.
Published opinions span Delaware (1), Georgia (1), Maryland (1). Delaware is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. Delaware rulings, Georgia rulings and Maryland rulings.
These published opinions sit within the broader workplace context.
Claim Types
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other Food Processing employers
Browse trusted published opinions involving similar workplaces.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.