Tyson Foods, Inc.
116 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2001–2025)
15 trusted published court opinions across 15 distinct cases · 9 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Tyson Foods, Inc. as an employer in 116 distinct federal employment cases between 2001 and 2025.
Of the 15 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 7 ended in a ruling for the employer, 2 ended in a ruling for the worker, 2 were dismissed, and 2 were sent back to a lower court.
Plaintiffs won 2 of 12 adjudicated opinions (17%).
The most common claims on record were Wage Theft, Discrimination, and Hostile Work Environment.
Cases were filed across 7 states, most often in AR.
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 15 distinct cases.
2 of 12 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.
Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Tyson Foods, Inc. appears in 15 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Freeman v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (2023) — Settlement. Workers at Tyson Foods filed a lawsuit claiming the company failed to pay them proper overtime compensation as required by federal law. This is a common wage theft complaint where employees believe they weren't compensated fairly for extra hours worked. Read the ruling.
Mathews v. Tyson Foods (2023) — Dismissed. A worker filed a lawsuit against Tyson Foods claiming discrimination and that the company failed to accommodate his religious beliefs. The case involved both a state law claim (Tennessee Human Rights Act) and a federal law claim (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act). Read the ruling.
Uninsured Employers' Fund v. Tyson Farms (2019) — Plaintiff Win. An injured worker filed a claim with the Uninsured Employers' Fund after getting hurt on the job. The question was whether Tyson Farms was legally responsible as an employer for providing workers' compensation insurance. The circuit court had initially ruled against this claim, but the case was appealed. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Wage Theft (5 of 15), Discrimination (4 of 15), Hostile Work Environment. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Wage Theft, Discrimination and Hostile Work Environment.
Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: FLSA (29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219) — The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in federal, state, and local governments. ADA (42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117) — The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in all aspects of employment. See the FLSA, ADA reference pages for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. FLSA and ADA.
Published opinions span Arkansas (4), Iowa (1), Alabama (1), Nebraska (1). Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. Arkansas rulings, Iowa rulings, Alabama rulings and Nebraska rulings.
These published opinions sit within the manufacturing sector, where OSHA whistleblower, FMLA, and disability-accommodation claims are most common.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
14 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 2 summary-judgment opinions, 1 ended the case in Tyson Foods, Inc.’s favor and 0 let the worker’s claims continue.
What do these stages mean?
- Appeal
- A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
- Summary judgment
- A ruling where the judge decides the case — or part of it — without a trial, because one side argues the key facts are not in dispute. For workers, getting past this step is often the biggest hurdle.
- Motion to dismiss
- An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
Published federal-court opinions only — most workplace disputes are resolved privately. This is not anyone’s odds, and not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Facing something similar? Check your rights →
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 Manufacturing 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.