Access to Justice and Member Firm Varnell Warwick Join Forces in the Eleventh Circuit
When some Florida restaurants discovered they were being overcharged for underweight poultry deliveries, they took their supplier to court, suspecting it was a systemic practice that potentially affected many other restaurants. They alleged the supplier, Sysco Systems, was violating Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), as well its own contract with the restaurant.
The restaurant owners were represented at the district court by Public Justice President-Elect Janet Varnell (Varnell and Warwick). Despite evidence from the clients and the State of Florida confirming Sysco’s underweight poultry deliveries, the district court ruled against the restaurant owners. On appeal, our Access to Justice team joined the effort and filed an amicus brief in support of the restaurant owners.
Because federal law can override—or preempt—conflicting state law, corporate defendants can use it to their advantage, especially if a weak federal statute will wipe out stronger state-level protections unfavorable to their interests. Sysco claimed the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) preempted the restaurant’s state FDUTPA claims. That is, they argued that the restaurants could not bring their own action under state law for Sysco’s deceptive practices and instead could only rely on enforcement by federal officials, even though FDUTPA does not impose a higher or even different standard than federal law. At their cores, the PPIA and FDUTPA prohibit misbranding, including misstating the quantity of a package’s contents. In its decision, the district court focused on how the restaurants gathered evidence of the misbranding, faulting them for not using the exact procedures used by federal inspectors when assessing misbranding at a wholesale level. That set a concerning precedent that could limit the ability to bring private claims anytime there is corresponding federal enforcement. Our amicus brief affirmed that federal preemption is concerned with what the law requires, not how a violation of the law can be proved.
We’re thrilled to report this joint effort brought a groundbreaking victory against Sysco. On December 6, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the Breach of Contract claims, upholding the restaurants’ right to seek accountability and justice from Sysco under Florida law. In its decision, the Eleventh Circuit called the arguments raised in our amicus “compelling.”
We look forward to partnering and co-counseling with more Public Justice member firms and continuing our decades-long fight against overly broad interpretations of federal preemption. Strong state-level consumer and worker protections are preserved with good case law. In Janet Varnell’s own words, “This victory is a testament to the collective prowess and unwavering dedication of the entire Public Justice team and reinforces our commitment to upholding justice in the nation.”
