The Ag Law Harvest

As April comes to a close, we bring you another edition of the Ag Law Harvest. This month’s harvest brings you laws and regulations from across the country regarding a national drinking water standard, the Endangered Species Act, Ag-Gag laws, noncompete agreements, and pollution. 

EPA Finalizes First-Ever PFAS Drinking Water Standards
Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced a final rule, issuing the “first-ever national, legally enforceable drinking water standard to protect communities from exposure to harmful per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as ‘forever chemicals’”. The final rule sets legally enforceable maximum contaminant levels for six PFAS chemicals in public water systems. The EPA also announced nearly $1 billion in new funding to “help states and territories implement PFAS testing and treatment at public water systems and to help owners of private wells address PFAS contamination.” The EPA suggests that this final rule “will reduce PFAS exposure for approximately 100 million people, prevent thousands of deaths, and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses.” 

Interior Deptartment Finalizes Rule to Strengthen Endangered Species Act
The Department of the Interior has announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These revisions aim to enhance participation in voluntary conservation programs by promoting native species conservation. They achieve this by clarifying and simplifying permitting processes under Section 10(a) of the ESA, encouraging greater involvement from resource managers and landowners in these voluntary initiatives. For more information about Section 10 of the ESA visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s website.

Kentucky Passes Ag-Gag Statute
On April 12, 2024, the Kentucky legislature overrode the governor’s veto to pass Senate Bill 16 into law. The new law, titled “An Act Relating to Agricultural Key Infrastructure Assets,” expands the definition of “key infrastructure assets” to include commercial food manufacturing or processing facilities, animal feeding operations, and concentrated animal feeding operations. It criminalizes trespassing on such properties with unmanned aircraft systems, recording devices, or photography equipment without the owner’s consent. The first offense is a Class B misdemeanor with up to 90 days imprisonment and a $250 fine, while subsequent offenses are Class A misdemeanors with up to 12 months imprisonment and a $500 fine.

Federal Trade Commission Bans Non-Compete Agreements
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a final rule banning noncompete agreements and clauses nationwide. This move aims to promote competition by safeguarding workers’ freedom to change jobs, increasing innovation and the formation of new businesses. Under the FTC’s new rule, existing noncompetes for the vast majority of workers will no longer be enforceable after the rule’s effective date. However, existing noncompetes for senior executives – those earning more than $151,164 annually and in policy making positions – remain enforceable under the new rule. Employers will have to notify workers bound to an existing noncompete that the noncompete agreement will not be enforced against the worker in the future. The final rule will become effective 120 days after publication in the Federal Register.  

EPA Announces New Rules to Reduce Pollution from Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) unveiled a set of final rules designed to decrease pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants. These rules, developed under various laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, aim to protect communities from pollution and improve public health while maintaining reliable electricity supply. They are expected to substantially reduce climate, air, water, and land pollution from the power industry, aligning with the Biden-Harris Administration’s goals of promoting public health, advancing environmental justice, and addressing climate change.

The Ag Law Harvest

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq. Program Coordinator Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University

Spring has officially sprung, and so have a few interesting legal updates. In this edition of the Ag Law Harvest we cover aggravated vehicular assault in a farm utility vehicle, “Made in the USA” labels, the Corporate Transparency Act’s legal woes, USDA’s Dairy Margin Program, and the U.S House Committee on Agriculture’s Agricultural Labor Working Group’s final report. 

Driver of Farm Utility Vehicle Cannot be Found Guilty of Aggravated Vehicular Assault. 
The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that a driver of a farm utility vehicle involved in a crash cannot be convicted of a felony for injuring passengers because the vehicle does not meet the definition of a “motor vehicle” under Ohio’s criminal code. Joshua Fork of Sandusky County crashed his Polaris utility vehicle while driving under the influence at a party in 2020. Two of Fork’s passengers sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident. Fork was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI), and two counts of aggravated vehicular assault. Fork did not contest his OVI conviction but did appeal his aggravated vehicular assault conviction to the Sixth District Court of Appeals. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court of Ohio. 

In its decision, the Court found that Ohio law has two definitions of “motor vehicle.” One definition applies strictly to traffic laws and the other applies more broadly to Ohio’s “penal laws.” The Court held that the definition of “motor vehicle” that applies to penal laws, such as aggravated vehicular assault, exempts utility vehicles. The Court concluded that because of the utility vehicle exemption and the fact that the utility vehicle’s principal purpose is for farm activities, Fork cannot be found guilty of vehicular aggravated assault. To read more on the Supreme Court’s decision, visit: https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2024/SCO/0321/230356.asp

USDA Announces Final Rule on “Made in the USA” Labels. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) announced the finalization of a rule to align the voluntary “Product of USA” label claim with consumer understanding of what the claim means. The USDA’s final “Product of USA” rule permits the voluntary use of the “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” label claim on meat, poultry, and egg products. However, these labels can only be used if the products are derived from animals that were born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States. The rule aims to prevent misleading U.S. origin labeling, ensuring that consumers receive truthful information about the origins of their food.

Under the final rule, the “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” label claim will remain voluntary for meat, poultry, and egg products. It will also be eligible for generic label approval, meaning it won’t require pre-approval by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) before use, but establishments must maintain documentation supporting the claim. Additionally, the rule permits other voluntary U.S. origin claims on these products, provided they include a description on the package of the preparation and processing steps that occurred in the United States upon which the claim is made. 

Corporate Transparency Act Loses First Federal Court Battle. 
As we have previously reported (here), the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) requires certain business entities to file Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) or face civil and criminal penalties. However, an interesting twist in the CTA saga has occurred. A federal court in Alabama issued an opinion ruling the CTA unconstitutional, concluding that the CTA exceeds the U.S. Constitution’s limits on Congress’s power, and issued an injunction against the U.S. Government from enforcing the CTA against the named plaintiffs in the case.  Therefore, the named plaintiff, Isaac Winkles, and companies for which he is a beneficial owner or applicant, the National Small Business Association, and the approximately 65,000 members of the National Small Business Association are currently not required to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. Everyone else must still comply with the CTA and the BOI reporting requirements. 

FinCEN released a statement acknowledging the court’s ruling but emphasized that only the named plaintiffs are excused from reporting beneficial ownership information to FinCEN at this time. On March 11, 2024, the U.S. Government filed a notice of appeal of the lower court’s ruling, hoping to reverse the injunction and the court’s decision. We will continue to monitor the situation and keep you informed of any updates to the CTA and BOI reporting requirements.

USDA Announces 2024 Dairy Margin Coverage Program. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) announced that starting February 28, 2024, dairy producers in the United States can enroll in the 2024 Dairy Margin Coverage (“DMC”) program. Enrollment for the 2024 DMC coverage ends on April 29, 2024. 

The USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) has made revisions to the DMC regulations to allow eligible dairy operations to make a one-time adjustment to their established production history. This adjustment involves combining previously established supplemental production history with DMC production history for dairy operations that participated in Supplemental Dairy Margin Coverage in previous coverage years. DMC has also been authorized through the calendar year 2024 as per the 2018 Farm Bill extension passed by Congress.

FSA Administrator Zach Ducheneaux encourages producers to enroll in the 2024 DMC program, citing its importance as a risk management tool. The program has proven effective, with over $1.2 billion in Dairy Margin Coverage payments issued to producers in 2023. Ducheneaux highlights the program’s affordability, noting that it offers a sense of security and peace of mind to producers.

DMC is a voluntary risk management program that provides protection to dairy producers when the margin between the all-milk price and the average feed price falls below a certain dollar amount selected by the producer. In 2023, DMC payments were triggered in 11 months, including two months where the margin fell below the catastrophic level of $4.00 per hundredweight, marking a significant development for the program.

House Committee Releases Final Report Recommending Changes to H-2A Program. 
On March 7, 2024, the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture’s Agricultural Labor Working Group (“ALWG”) released its final report containing policy recommendations for U.S. agricultural labor. The report includes significant reforms to the H-2A program, many of which, as announced by the ALWG, received unanimous support from the bipartisan working group. The recommended policies encompass creating a single H-2A applicant portal, implementing H-2A wage reforms, establishing a federal heat standard for H-2A workers, and granting year-round industries such as livestock, poultry, dairy, peanuts, sugar beets, sugarcane, and forestry access to the H-2A program.

The Contract Law Harvest

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq. Program Coordinator Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University

In this rendition of the Ag Law Harvest, we bring you some contracts! Over the course of February, there were three Ohio cases that demonstrate the importance of having a written contract, the ability to form a contract through your actions, and the need to make sure specific terms within a contract can be enforceable. 

Handshake Agreements Can Be a Double-Edged Sword.
In this case we are introduced to two brothers (the “Plaintiffs”), who were equal partners in a farming business that included buying and selling livestock. As part of their business, Plaintiffs sold cattle to Defendants between 2009 and 2017. The parties did not have a formal contract in place and conducted business on a “handshake agreement.” 

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants acted as intermediaries, purchasing heifers from them, and reselling them to other dairy farmers or at market. According to Plaintiffs, it was customary for the Defendants to pay for the cattle immediately upon delivery or within 30 days. However, around 2016, Defendants allegedly wrote checks for seven transactions but asked Plaintiffs not to cash them due to insufficient funds. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants never honored these checks, resulting in an outstanding amount of $128,950. Despite Plaintiffs’ attempts to collect, Defendants denied owing any money, arguing that Plaintiffs were fully paid through later payments or third-party transactions. This disagreement led to the filing of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

In February of last year, the trial court granted Plaintiffs summary judgment and awarded them $120,150. Defendants appealed the trial court’s decision arguing that summary judgment was inappropriate because whether or not Defendants owed Plaintiffs any money was in dispute. The appellate court agreed. 

In its opinion, the appellate court stated that it was clear that “the trial court weighed the credibility of the parties. . .” The appellate court also made it clear that “[s]ince resolution of the factual dispute will depend, at least in part, upon the credibility of the parties or their witnesses, summary judgment in such a case is inappropriate.” Furthermore, the court noted that because there was no written contract between the parties, the only evidence to demonstrate the particulars and common practices of the handshake agreement comes from the personal knowledge of the Plaintiffs and Defendants. Therefore, because both parties disagree as to whether Defendants owe any money to Plaintiffs, the trial court should not have ruled in favor of Plaintiffs on summary judgment. Consequently, the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, potentially including a trial.

This case shows us two things, the importance of having a written contract and the importance of recordkeeping. The parties to this lawsuit must now argue that their recollection of events is the true and accurate recollection. Both parties will likely be judged by a group of jurors and one party is bound to be out a large sum of money. A written contract could have avoided much of the dispute by including language about the process for payment, record keeping requirements, and other terms and conditions that would have governed the relationship of the parties. Now, because there is no written contract, this case becomes a case of “he said-he said.”  

Implied Contracts Can Be Formed Based on a Tacit Understanding.
The second case demonstrates that the surrounding facts and circumstances can create an implied contract even when no signed contract exists. In this case Plaintiff, a residential construction company, provided the Defendant-homeowners with two written quotes for roofing and other work at their home. The quotes included various services and specified a 30% upfront payment with the remainder due upon completion of the work. Although the Defendants did not sign or date the quotes, they paid Plaintiff $6,815, which was stated to be a 30% prepayment for the total quoted amount of $22,717. 

After completing the roof, Plaintiff submitted a bill to the Defendants for the balance due on the roof. The Defendants took issue with the invoice for two reasons: (1) the price did not match the quotes, and (2) Defendants believed that payment would not be due until all items on both quotes were completed. Ultimately, the parties parted ways and Defendants asked Plaintiff to not return to their home leaving the remainder of the work listed on the two quotes uncompleted. 

Plaintiff sued the Defendants alleging breach of contract, seeking payment for the finished roof. The matter proceeded to a bench trial where the trial court found that the two quotes and the 30% payment operated as an implied contract and not an express one. The trial court also held that Plaintiff did partially perform the agreement and should be paid for the roof installation. 

The Defendants appealed, arguing that Plaintiff could not recover in this case because Plaintiff only alleged a breach of an express contract and did not seek recovery for breach of an implied contract. The appellate court disagreed. The court noted that under Ohio law there are three types of contracts: (1) express contracts, (2) implied in fact contracts, and (3) implied in law contracts. 

The court went on further to explain when the three different kinds of contracts are created. An express contract is created when there is an offer and acceptance of written terms. An implied in fact contract requires a “meeting of the minds” and that “is shown by the surrounding circumstances which [make] it inferable that [a] contract exists as a matter of tacit understanding.” Lastly, with an implied in law contract “there is no meeting of the minds” but the law will create civil liability for a person in receipt of benefits which they are not justly entitled to retain.   

The appellate court held that the trial court correctly found there was no express contract between the parties, rather there was an implied in fact contract. The court reasoned that the two written quotes and the 30% prepayment created a tacit understanding amongst the parties. Furthermore, the court concluded that because an implied contract existed amongst the parties, Plaintiff is entitled to recover for the work they did do. Lastly, the trial court noted that Defendants should have been aware that Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim would not only apply to express contracts but also to implied contracts. 

Noncompetition Agreement Found to be Unenforceable. 
In our final case we are introduced to a salesman that was being sued by his former employer for breach of a non-competition agreement (the “NCA”) after going to work for a direct competitor. Plaintiff, Kross Acquisition Co., LLC (“Kross”), is a basement waterproofing contractor. Kross provides service in southwestern Ohio, southeastern Indiana, and northern and eastern Kentucky. Kross’s former employee Roger Kief left to work for Groundworks Ohio, LLC (“Groundworks”). Groundworks is engaged in substantially the same business as Kross and serves the entire state of Ohio as well as Kentucky, Indiana, and many other states. 

Kief began working for Kross in 2017 and signed the NCA. The NCA prohibits Kief from disclosing confidential information and from working anywhere in Ohio or Kentucky for any competing company for a period of two years after leaving Kross. In February of 2022, Groundworks offered Kief an identical position with a start date of March 2022. 

Kross filed lawsuit against Kief for failing to adhere to the NCA. The trial court found the NCA unenforceable and granted summary judgment in favor of Kief. Kross filed an appeal arguing that the trial court erred when it found the NCA unenforceable. The appellate court disagreed. The court noted that the following factors are used to analyze whether a noncompetition agreement can be enforceable: 

1. Time and space limitations: Whether the agreement specifies a reasonable duration and geographic scope for its restrictions.

2. Sole contact with the customer: Whether the employee is the primary or sole contact with the employer’s customers.

3. Confidential information or trade secrets: Whether the employee has access to and possesses confidential information or trade secrets of the employer.

4. Limitation of unfair competition: Whether the covenant aims to prevent unfair competition or if it overly restricts ordinary competition.

5. Stifling of inherent skill and experience: Whether the agreement unreasonably stifles the employee’s inherent skill and experience in the industry.

6. Disproportionate benefit to the employer: Whether the benefit gained by the employer from the agreement outweighs the detriment imposed on the employee.

7. Bar on sole means of support: Whether the agreement bars the employee’s only means of earning a livelihood.

8. Development of restrained skills during employment: Whether the skills restricted by the agreement were actually developed during the employee’s tenure with the employer.

9. Incidental nature of forbidden employment: Whether the forbidden employment is merely incidental to the employee’s primary employment with the employer.

Based on the foregoing factors, the court found that the geographic and time limitations “exceeded what is necessary to protect Kross’s legitimate business interests.” Therefore, the appellate court found the NCA unenforceable.   

The Ag Law Harvest

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq. Attorney/Program Coordinator, Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University

Happy 2024! We hope your new calendar year has gotten off to a delightful start. As we close out the first of twelve months, we bring you another edition of the Ag Law Harvest. In this blog post, we delve into the intricate world of employment contracts and noncompete agreements, classifying workers as independent contractors or employees, Ag-Gag laws, and agricultural policy. 

Ohio Man Violates Employer’s Noncompete Agreement. 

Kevin Ciptak (“Ciptak”), an Ohio landscaping employee, is facing legal trouble for allegedly breaching his employment contract with Yagour Group LLC, operating as Perfection Landscapes (“Perfection”). The contract included a noncompete agreement, which Ciptak is accused of violating by running his own landscaping business on the side while working for Perfection. Perfection eventually discovered the extent of Ciptak’s side business, leading to Perfection filing a lawsuit.

During the trial, Ciptak testified that Perfection was “too busy” to take on the jobs he completed. Additionally, Ciptak stated that the profits from his side jobs amounted to over $60,000. Perfection countered that they would have been able to perform the work and, because of the obvious breach of the noncompete agreement, Perfection lost out on the potential profits. The trial court ruled in favor of Perfection, ordering Ciptak to pay the $60,000 in profits along with attorney’s fees and expenses, exceeding $80,000. Ciptak appealed, arguing that, according to Ohio law, Perfection could only recover its own lost profits, not Ciptak’s gains from the breach. He also claimed that Perfection was not harmed as they were “too busy,” and Perfection failed to provide evidence of lost profits. 

The Eighth District Court of Appeals ultimately found in favor of Perfection.  The court reasoned that “[t]his case came down to a credibility determination.” The court held there was no dispute that Ciptak had violated the noncompete agreement. What was in dispute was whether Perfection could have and would have performed the work. The Eighth District held that the trial court’s finding that Perfection could have performed the work was not unreasonable. The Eighth District noted that although Ciptak claimed that Perfection was “too busy” to do any of those jobs, Ciptak “provided no other evidence to support this assertion.” The Eighth District ruled that the evidence presented at trial showed that Perfection would have realized approximately the same amount of profit on those jobs as Ciptak did and, therefore, Perfection was damaged as a result of Ciptak’s breach of the noncompete agreement. 

New Independent Contractor Rule Announced by Department of Labor. 

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has published a final rule to help employers better understand when a worker qualifies as an employee and when they may be considered an independent contractor. The new rule gets rid of and replaces the 2021 rule. As announced by the DOL, the new rule “restores the multifactor analysis used by courts for decades, ensuring that all relevant factors are analyzed to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.” Thus, the new rule returns to a “totality of the circumstances” approach and analyzes the following six factors: (1) any opportunity for profit or loss a worker might have; (2) the financial stake and nature of any resources a worker has invested in the work; (3) the degree of permanence of the work relationship; (4) the degree of control an employer has over the person’s work; (5) whether the work the person does is essential to the employer’s business; and (6) the worker’s skill and initiative. The new rule goes into effect on March 11, 2024. 

Federal Appeals Court Reverses Injunctions on Iowa “Ag-Gag Laws.” 

On January 8, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued two opinions reversing injunctions against two Iowa “ag-gag laws”. At trial, the two laws were found to have violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In its first opinion, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed Iowa’s “Agricultural Production Facility Trespass” law which makes it illegal to use deceptive practices to obtain access or employment in an “agricultural production facility, with the intent to cause physical or economic harm or other injury to the agricultural production facility’s operations . . .” The Eighth Circuit found that the intent element contained within the Iowa law prevents it from violating the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the Iowa law “is not a viewpoint-based restriction on speech, but rather a permissible restriction on intentionally false speech undertaken to accomplish a legally cognizable harm.” 

In its second opinion, the Eighth Circuit reviewed an Iowa law that penalized anyone who “while trespassing, ‘knowingly places or uses a camera or electronic surveillance device that transmits or records images or data while the device is on the trespassed property[.]’” The court found that the Iowa law did not violate the First Amendment because “the [law’s] restrictions on the use of a camera only apply to situations when there has first been an unlawful trespass, the [law] does not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the State’s legitimate interests.”  The court noted that Iowa has a strong interest in protecting property rights by “penalizing that subset of trespassers who – by using a camera while trespassing – cause further injury to privacy and property rights.” 

Both cases have been remanded to the trial courts for further proceedings consistent with the forgoing opinions. 

USDA Announces New Remote Beef Grading Program.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) announced a new pilot program to “allow more cattle producers and meat processors to access better markets through the [USDA’s] official beef quality grading and certification.” The “Remote Grading Pilot for Beef” looks to expand on the USDA’s approach to increase competition in agricultural markets for small- and mid-size farmers and ranchers. The pilot program hopes to cut expenses that otherwise deter small, independent meat processors from having a highly trained USDA grader visit their facility. 

Under the pilot program, trained plant employees capture specific images of the live animal and the beef carcass. These images are then sent to a USDA grader that will inspect the images and accompanying plant records and product data, who then assigns the USDA Quality Grade and applicable carcass certification programs. The “Remote Grading Pilot for Beef” is only available to domestic beef slaughter facilities operating under federal inspection and producing product that meets USDA grading program eligibility criteria. More information can be found at https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/remote-beef-grading. 

USDA Accepting Applications for Value-Added Producer Grants Program. 

On January 17, 2024, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) announced that it is “accepting applications for grants to help agricultural producers maximize the value of their products and venture into new and better markets.” These grants are available through the Value-Added Producer Grants Program. Independent producers, agricultural producer groups, farmer or rancher cooperatives, and majority-controlled producer-based business ventures are all eligible for the grants. The USDA may award up to $75,000 for planning activities or up to $250,000 for working capital expenses related to producing and marketing a value-added agricultural product. For more information, visit the USDA’s website or contact your local USDA Rural Development office.

The Ag Law Harvest

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Attorney/Program Coordinator, Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University

Happy Fall Y’all! We are back with another monthly edition of The Ag Law Harvest. This month’s edition brings you an Ohio Supreme Court case that clarifies a party’s obligations under express indemnification provisions in a contract, an Ohio woman’s fight against a local zoning ordinance that sought to remove her pet ducks, and agricultural labor updates. 

Common Law Notice Requirements May No Longer Exist Under Express Indemnification. 
The Ohio Supreme Court recently made a significant decision regarding indemnification clauses in contracts. Indemnification is the right of one party to be fully reimbursed for payments they made on behalf of another party who should have made those payments. There are two types of indemnity: express and implied. Express indemnity is when a written contract explicitly states that one party will reimburse the other under certain circumstances. Implied indemnity is a common law principle where each party is responsible for their own wrongdoing, and the wrongdoer should reimburse the injured party.

In this case, Discovery Oil and Gas contracted with Wildcat Drilling, which included an express indemnification provision. Wildcat was supposed to indemnify Discovery for any fines related to pollution or contamination from drilling. When Wildcat violated Ohio law by using brine improperly, Discovery settled with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources for $50,000 without notifying Wildcat and requested reimbursement. Wildcat refused, arguing that Discovery didn’t follow Ohio common law, which requires notice before settling a claim.

The Ohio Supreme Court sided with Discovery, stating that the express clause in the contract indicated the parties’ intent to deviate from common law principles. The court clarified that notice requirements for indemnification are determined by the contract terms. Depending on the contract, parties may not need to provide notice before settling a claim and seeking reimbursement. This ruling emphasizes the importance of contract language in determining indemnification obligations.

Medina County Woman Has All Her Ducks in a Row. 
A Medina County woman is able to keep her pet ducks after a battle with the Village of Seville and an interpretation of its zoning ordinances. Ms. Carlson, the owner of the ducks at issue, fought to keep her pet ducks after being ordered to remove them from her property by Wadsworth Municipal Court. Ms. Carlson appealed the municipal court’s ruling, arguing that Seville’s zoning ordinance against “poultry and livestock” is unconstitutionally vague. The appellate court agreed with Ms. Carlson. The appellate court found that Seville’s ordinance against poultry focused on hens, roosters, coop hygiene, and the sale of poultry byproducts such as meat and eggs. The court held that an ordinary person would not be able to understand that keeping other birds, such as ducks, as companion animals would violate Seville’s ordinances. Therefore, Ms. Carlson could not be found to have committed an unclassified misdemeanor by owning pet ducks. However, had Ms. Carlson been keeping the ducks and selling their byproducts such as duck eggs and meat, there might have been a different outcome.  

Farm Labor Stabilization and Protection Pilot Program. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) has announced the opening of the Farm Labor Stabilization and Protection Pilot Program (“FLSP”). The FLSP will award up to $65 million in grant funding to provide support for agricultural employers to implement new hearty labor standards/procedures and update existing workplace infrastructure to help promote a healthy and safe work environment. The USDA states that the purpose of the FLSP program is “to improve food and agricultural supply chain resiliency by addressing challenges agricultural employers face with labor shortages and instability.” The FLSP has three goals: (1) drive U.S. economic recovery and safeguard domestic food supply by addressing current labor shortages in agriculture; (2) reduce irregular migration from Northern Central America through the expansion of regular pathways; (3) improve working conditions for all farmworkers. Qualified applicants can receive grants ranging from $25,000 – $2,000,000. The application window closes on November 28, 2023. For more information, view the USDA’s fact sheet on the FLSP. 

Department of Labor Publishes Proposed Rule to Amend H-2A Regulations. 
The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) Employment and Training Administration (“ETA”) has published a proposed rule titled “Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States.” The proposed rule seeks to amend several H-2A program regulations by: 

• Adding new protections for worker self-advocacy. 
• Clarifying when a termination is “for cause.” 
• Making foreign labor recruitment more transparent. 
• Making wages more predictable. 
• Improving workers’ access to safe transportation. 
• Enhancing enforcement to improve program integrity. 

Read more about the proposed rule by visiting the DOL’s news release. The comment period on the proposed rule ends November 14, 2023. 

​​​​​​​Department of Homeland Security Publishes Proposed Rule Amending H-2 Program.  The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has published a proposed rule titled “Modernizing the H-2 Program Requirements, Oversight, and Worker Protections.” The DHS announced its intent to strengthen protections for temporary workers through the H-2A and H-2B worker programs by providing greater flexibility and protections for participating workers, and improving the programs’ efficiency. The proposed rule would: 

• Provide whistleblower protection to H-2A and H-2B workers who report their employers for program violations. 
• Extend grace periods for workers seeking new employment, preparing for departure from the United States, or seeking a change of immigration status. 
• Establish permanent H-2 portability, allowing employers to hire H-2 workers who are already lawfully in the United States while the employer’s H-2 petition for the worker is pending. 

The comment period for the proposed rule ends on November 20, 2023. 

The Ag Law Harvest

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Attorney and Research Specialist, OSU Agricultural and Resource Law Program

Did you know that the loudest land animal is the howler monkey?  The howler monkey can produce sounds that reach 140 decibels.  For reference, that is about as loud as a jet engine at take-off, which can rupture your eardrums.  

Like the howler monkey, we are here to make some noise about recent agricultural and resource law updates from across the country.  This edition of the Ag Law Harvest brings you court cases dealing with zoning ordinances, food labeling issues, and even the criminal prosecution of a dairy farm.  We then look at a couple states proposing, or disposing, of legislation related to agriculture.  

A zoning ordinance has Michigan landowners hogtied.  The Michigan Supreme Court recently ruled that Michigan’s 6-year statute of limitations does not prevent a township from suing a landowner for alleged ongoing zoning violations, even if the start of landowner’s alleged wrongdoing occurred outside the statute of limitations period.  

Harvey and Ruth Ann Haney (“Defendants”) own property in a Michigan township that is zoned for commercial use.  Defendants began raising hogs on their property in 2006.  Defendants started with one hog and allegedly grew their herd to about 20 hogs in 2016.  In 2016, Fraser Township (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendants seeking a permanent injunction to enforce its zoning ordinance and to prevent Defendants from raising hogs and other animals that would violate the zoning ordinance on their commercially zoned property.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and argued that Plaintiff’s claims were barred because of Michigan’s 6-year statute of limitations.  A statute of limitations is a law that prevents certain lawsuits from being filed against individuals after a certain amount of time has passed.  In Ohio, for example, if someone were to be injured in a car accident, they would only have 2 years to bring a personal injury claim against the person who caused the accident.  That’s because Ohio has passed a law that mandates most personal injury claims to be brought within 2 years of the date of injury.  

In the Michigan case, Defendants argued that because their first alleged wrongdoing occurred in 2006, Plaintiff could not file their lawsuit against the Defendants in 2016.  A trial court disagreed with Defendants and denied their motion to dismiss.  Defendants took the motion up to the Michigan Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals found that Plaintiff’s claim was barred because of the 6-year statute of limitations.  Plaintiff appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which overturned the Court of Appeals’ decision and held that Plaintiff’s claim was not barred.  The Michigan Supreme Court reasoned that the presence of the hogs constitutes the alleged unlawful conduct of the Defendants, and that unlawful conduct occurred in 2006 and has occurred almost every day thereafter.  The court concluded that because Defendants unlawful conduct was ongoing after 2006, Plaintiff’s claims were not barred by the statute of limitations.  The case now goes back to the trial court to be tried on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. 

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.  Family Dollar Stores, Inc. (“Family Dollar”) has found itself in a bit of nutty situation.  Plaintiff, Heather Rudy, has filed a class action lawsuit against Family Dollar, alleging that Family Dollar has misled her and other consumers by marketing its Eatz brand Smoked Almonds as “smoked.”  Plaintiff asserts that Family Dollar is being deceptive because its Smoked Almonds are not smoked over an open fire, but instead flavored with a natural smoke flavoring.  Plaintiff’s claims against Family Dollar include violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”); breaches of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability; violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; negligent misrepresentation; fraud; and unjust enrichment.  

Family Dollar filed an early motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff has not stated a claim for which relief can be granted.  A federal district court in Illinois dismissed some of Plaintiff’s claims but ruled that some claims against Family Dollar should be allowed to continue.  Plaintiff’s claims for breaches of warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud were all dismissed by the court.  The court did decide that Plaintiff’s claims under ICFA unjust enrichment should stay.  The court reasoned that Plaintiff’s interpretation that Family Dollar’s almonds would be smoked over an open fire are not unreasonable.  Moreover, the court recognized that nothing on the front label of Family Dollar’s Smoked Almonds would suggest, to consumers, that the term “smoked” refers to a flavoring rather than the process by which the almonds are produced.  The court even pointed out that competitors’ products contain the word “flavored” on the front of similar “smoked” products.  Therefore, the court concluded that Plaintiff’s interpretation of Family Dollar’s Smoked Almonds was not irrational and her claims for violating the ICFA should continue into the discovery phase of litigation, and possibly to trial.  

Undercover investigation leads to criminal prosecution of Pennsylvania dairy farm.  A Pennsylvania Court of Appeals (“Court of Appeals”) recently decided on Animal Outlook’s (“AO”) appeal from a Pennsylvania trial court’s order dismissing AO’s petition to review the decision of the Franklin County District Attorney’s Office (“DA”) to not prosecute a Pennsylvania dairy farm (the “Dairy Farm”) for animal cruelty and neglect.  An undercover agent for AO held employment at the Dairy Farm and captured video of the condition and treatment of animals on the farm, which AO claims constitutes criminal activity under Pennsylvania’s animal cruelty laws.  

AO compiled a report containing evidence and expert reports documenting the Dairy Farm’s alleged animal cruelty and neglect.  AO submitted its report to the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) in 2019.  The PSP conducted its own investigation which lasted for over a year, and in March 2020, issued a press release indicating that the DA would not prosecute the Dairy Farm.  

In response, AO drafted private criminal complaints against the Dairy Farm and submitted those to the local Magisterial District Judge.  The local Magisterial Judge disapproved all of AO’s complaints and concluded that the complaints “lacked merit.”  AO then filed a petition in a Pennsylvania trial court to review the Magisterial Judge’s decision.  The trial court dismissed AO’s petition and concluded that the DA correctly determined “that there was not enough evidence, based upon the law, to initiate prosecution against any of the Defendants alleged in the private criminal complaints.”  AO appealed the trial court’s decision to the Court of Appeals which ended up reversing the trial court’s decision.    

The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court failed to view the presented evidence through a lens that is favorable to moving forward with prosecution and the trial court failed to consider all reasonable inferences that could be made on the evidence.  The Court of Appeals observed that the trial court made credibility determinations of the evidence by favoring the evidence gathered by PSP over the evidence presented by AO.  The Court of Appeals noted that a trial court’s duty is to determine “whether there was evidence proffered to satisfy each element of an offense, not to make credibility determinations and conduct fact-finding.” Additionally, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not do a complete review of all the evidence and favored the evidenced obtained by PSP over the evidence presented by AO.  The Court of Appeals determined that had the trial court reviewed all the evidence, it would have found that AO provided sufficient evidence to establish prima facie cases of neglect and animal cruelty, which would have provided the legal basis for the DA’s office to prosecute the claims.  

Lastly, the DA argued that no legal basis for prosecution exists because the Dairy Farm is protected by the normal agricultural operations exemption to Pennsylvania’s animal cruelty laws.  However, the Court of Appeals found that the conduct of the Dairy Farm, as alleged, would fall outside the normal agricultural operations exemption because AO’s report demonstrates that the Dairy Farm’s practices were not the dairy industry norm.    

Ultimately the Court of Appeals found that AO’s private criminal complaints did have merit and that the DA had enough evidence and a legal basis to prosecute AO’s claims.  The Court of Appeals remanded the trial court’s decision and ordered that the DA to go ahead and prosecute the Dairy Farm on its alleged animal cruelty violations.  

Wyoming fails to pass legislation limiting what can be considered agricultural land.  The Wyoming House of Representatives struck down a recent piece of legislation looking to increase the threshold requirement to allow landowners the ability to classify their land as agricultural, have their land appraised at an agricultural value, and receive the lower tax rate for agricultural land.  Current Wyoming law classifies land as agricultural if: (1) the land is currently being used for an agricultural purpose; (2) the land is not part of a patted subdivision; and (3) the owner of the land derived annual gross revenue of $500 or more from the marketing of agricultural products, or if the land is leased, the lessee derived annual gross revenues of $1,000 or more from the marketing of agricultural products.  

Wyoming House Bill 23 sought to increase the threshold amount of gross revenues derived from the marketing of agricultural products to $5,000 for all producers.  The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation and Wyoming Stock Growers associations supported the bill.  Proponents of the bill argued that the intent of agricultural land appraisals is to support commercial agriculture, not wealthy landowners taking advantage of Wyoming’s tax laws.  Opponents of the bill argued that House Bill 23 hurt small agricultural landowners and that the benefits of the bill did not outweigh the harms.  House Bill 23 died with a vote of 34-25, failing to reach the 2/3 approval for bills to advance.  

Oregon introduces legislation relating to overtime for agricultural workers.  Oregon House Bill 4002 proposes to require agricultural employers to pay all agricultural employees an overtime wage for time worked over 40-hours in a workweek.  House Bill 4002 does propose a gradual phase-in of the overtime pay requirements for agricultural employees.  For the years 2023 and 2024, agricultural employees would be entitled to overtime pay for any time worked over 55 hours in a workweek.  For 2025 and 2026, the overtime pay requirement kicks in after 48 hours.  Then in 2027, and beyond, agricultural employers would be required to pay an overtime pay rate to employees that work more than 40 hours in a workweek.   

The Ag Law Harvest

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Attorney and Research Specialist, OSU Agricultural and Resource Law Program

Did you know that ants are the only creatures besides humans that will farm other creatures?  It’s true.  Just like we raise cows, sheep, pigs, and chickens in order to obtain a food source, ants will do the same with other insects.  This is particularly true with aphids.  Ants will protect aphids from natural predators and shelter them during heavy rain showers in order to gain a constant supply of honeydew.

Like an ant, we have done some heavy lifting to bring you the latest agricultural and resource law updates.  We start with some federal cases that deal with the definition of navigable waters under the Clean Water Act, mislabeling honey products, and indigenous hunting rights.  We then finish with some state law developments from across the country that include Georgia’s right to farm law and California’s Proposition 12.  

Supreme Court to review navigable waters definition under the Clean Water Act.  The Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case of an Idaho couple who have been battling the federal government over plans to build their home.  Chantell and Mike Sackett (“Plaintiffs”) began construction on their new home near Priest Lake, Idaho but were halted by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).  The EPA issued an administrative compliance order alleging that Plaintiffs’ construction violates the Clean Water Act.  The EPA claims that the lot, on which the Plaintiffs are constructing their new home, contains wetlands that qualify as federally regulated “navigable waters.”  Plaintiffs are asking the Court to revisit its 2006 opinion in Rapanos v. United States and help clarify how to determine when a wetland should be classified as “navigable waters.”  In Rapanos, the Court found that the Clean Water Act regulates only certain wetlands, those that are determined to be “navigable waters.”  However, two different tests were laid out in the Court’s opinions.  The Court issued a plurality opinion which stated that the government can only regulate wetlands that have a continuous surface water connection to other regulated waters.  A concurring opinion, authored by Justice Kennedy, put forth a more relaxed test that allows for regulation of wetlands that bear a “significant nexus” with traditional navigable waters.  Justice Kennedy’s test did not take into consideration whether there was any surface water connection between the wetland and the traditional navigable waters.  In the lower appellate court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test to uphold the EPA’s authority to halt Plaintiffs’ construction.  Now, Plaintiffs hope the Supreme Court will adopt a clear rule that brings “fairness, consistency, and a respect for private property rights to the Clean Water Act’s administration.”  

SueBee sued for “bee”ing deceptive.  Sioux Honey Association Cooperative (“Defendant”) finds itself in a sticky situation after Jason Scholder (“Plaintiff”) brought a class action lawsuit against the honey maker for violating New York’s consumer protection laws by misrepresenting the company’s honey products marketed under the SueBee brand.  Plaintiff claims that the words “Pure” or “100% Pure” on the Defendant’s honey products are misleading and deceptive because the honey contains glyphosate.  Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit and a federal district court in New York granted Defendant’s motion in part and denied it in part.  Defendant asked the court to find that its labels could not be misleading as a matter of law because any trace amounts of glyphosate in the honey is a result of the natural behavior of bees interacting with agriculture and not a result of Defendant’s production process.  However, the court declined to dismiss Plaintiff’s mislabeling claims.  The court concluded that a reasonable consumer might not actually understand that the terms “Pure” or “100% Pure” means that trace amounts of glyphosate could end up in honey from the bees’ foraging process.  The court also declined the Defendant’s request to dismiss Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim because of the alleged misrepresentations of the honey.  However, the court did dismiss Plaintiff’s breach of express warranty claim and request for injunctive relief.  The court dismissed Plaintiff’s breach of express warranty claim because Plaintiff failed to notify Defendant of its alleged breach of warranty, as required by New York law.  Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief was also dismissed because the court could not find any imminent threat of continued injury to Plaintiff since he has now learned that the honey contains trace amounts of glyphosate.  The court ordered the parties to proceed with discovery on Plaintiff’s remaining claims, keeping the case abuzz.

Indigenous Hunting Rights.  Recently, two members of the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation (“Northwestern Band”) were cited for hunting on Idaho lands without tags issued by the state.  The Northwestern Band filed suit against the state of Idaho declaring that its members possessed hunting rights pursuant to the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 (the “1868 Treaty”).  The 1868 Treaty provided that the Shoshone Nation agreed to permanently settle on either Fort Hall Reservation, located in Southeastern Idaho, or Wind River Reservation, located in Western Wyoming.  By agreeing to settle on one of the two reservations, the Shoshone Nation was granted hunting rights on unoccupied lands of the United states.  However, the Northwestern Band ended up settling in Northern Utah and not on one of the two named reservations.  After considering the 1868 Treaty, the Federal District Court of Idaho dismissed Northwestern Band’s lawsuit.  The court held that the hunting rights contained in the 1868 Treaty were tied to the promise to live on one of the reservations, and that a tribe cannot receive those hunting rights without living on one of the appropriate reservations.  Thus, the court found that because the Northwestern Band settled in Northern Utah and not on one of the reservations, the hunting rights of the 1868 Treaty did not extend to the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation.  

Tensions rise over Georgia’s Freedom to Farm Act.  A few days ago, Georgia lawmakers introduced legislation that seeks to further protect Georgia farmers from nusiance lawsuits.  House Bill 1150 (“HB 1150”) proposes to change current Georgia law to protect farmers and other agricultural operations from being sued for emitting smells, noises, and other activities that may be found offensive by neighboring landowners.  Georgia’s current law, which became effective in 1980, does provide some protection for Georgia farmers, but only from neighboring landowners that have moved near the farm or agricultural operation after the current law went into effect.  All neighboring landowners that lived near the farming operation prior to the current law going into effect have retained their right to sue.  HB 1150, on the other hand, will prevent these nuisance lawsuits by all neighboring landowners, as long as the farm or agricultural operation have been operating for a year or more.  Passing a right to farm law has proven to be difficult in Georgia.  In 2020, House Bill 545, also known as the “Right to Farm bill” failed to pass before the final day of the 2019-2020 legislative session. Private landowners, farmers, and their supporters, are divided on the issue and seek to protect their respective property rights. It doesn’t look like HB 1150 will have the easiest of times in the Georgia legislature. 

Confining California’s Proposition 12.  Meat processors and businesses that sell whole pork meat in California (collectively the “Petitioners”) have delayed the enforcement of California’s Proposition 12 (“Prop 12”), for now.  Prop 12 is California’s animal confinement law that has sent shockwaves across the nation as it pertains to raising and selling pork, eggs, and veal.  Last week, the Superior Court for Sacramento County granted Petitioners’ writ of mandate to delay the enforcement of Prop 12 on sales of whole pork meat.  Petitioners argue that Prop 12 cannot be enforced until California has implemented its final regulations on Prop 12.  To date, California has yet to implement those final regulations.  California, on the other hand, suggests that final regulations are not a precondition to enforcement of Prop 12 and the civil and criminal penalties that can be brought against any farmer or business that violates Prop 12.  The court disagreed.  The court found that the language of Prop 12, as voted on by California residents, explicitly states that California voters wanted regulations in place before the square-footage requirements of Prop 12 took effect.  Therefore, the court granted Petitioners’ writ of mandate to prevent the enforcement of Prop 12 until final regulations have been implemented.  The court’s writ will remain in effect until 180 days after final regulations go into effect.  This will allow producers and businesses to prepare themselves to comply with the final regulations.  Opponents of Prop 12 believe this is another reason why the Supreme Court of the United States should review California’s Proposition 12 for its constitutionality.  

The Ag Law Harvest

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Attorney and Research Specialist, OSU Agricultural and Resource Law Program

Did you know there is a bird with talons larger than grizzly bear claws?  The Harpy Eagle’s back talons can reach lengths of 5 inches, which is larger than a grizzly bear’s claws which reach lengths of around 4 inches. Thankfully, the Harpy Eagle is not usually found in the United States, they are traditionally found in the rainforests of Central and South America.  

The variety and extent of the animal kingdom can be a good analogy when we talk about the scope and variability of agricultural and resource law.  “Ag law” isn’t in and of itself a core area of law, at least not an area of law taught in most law schools across the country.  Those core areas of law are traditionally contracts, constitutional, tort, property, and a few others.  But ag law includes most, if not all, of the core legal subjects.  This includes property law, tax law, tort law, international law, intellectual property law, environmental law, contracts, business, labor and employment, and others.  This week’s edition of the Ag Law Harvest shows you how diverse ag law really is.  We review some legislation moving in parts of the country that deal with tax law, property law, and administrative law.  We also review Federal regulations and court cases that address food law, trademark law, and antitrust law.  

Florida introduces legislation to protect farmers’ preferential tax benefits amid agritourism boom.  Florida’s legislature is hard at work to ensure the success of Florida’s agriculture and agritourism industries.   Recently, Florida’s legislature introduced Senate Bill 1186 and House Bill 717.  The purpose of both bills is to promote Florida’s agritourism industry and protect farmers when it comes to land classification, taxation, and regulation.  Both pieces of legislation look to: 

• Eliminate duplicate regulatory authority over agritourism by preventing local government from enacting regulations that prohibit, restrict, or otherwise limit an agritourism activity from taking place on land classified as agricultural land. 
• Prevent land from being classified “non-agricultural” simply because an agritourism activity takes places on the land, so long as the agritourism activity is taking place on a bona fide farm. 
• Implement a hybrid property taxation scheme which allows the buildings and other structures used for agritourism activities to be assessed at just value and added to the agriculturally assessed value of the land.  

Both bills are currently making their way through their respective chamber’s committees and should be voted on soon.  

Michigan looking to pass legislation to reduce fines for family farmers that do not report accidental workplace deaths to the state.  The Michigan Senate recently passed a substitute for House Bill 4031, which is focused on reducing the fine incurred by family farms for not reporting the death of a family member within eight hours.  Under current Michigan law, a family farm must report any fatality to the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration within eight hours or face a fine of at least $5,000, which is exactly what happened to the Eisenmann family in 2019.  The Eisenmann family ran a family farm and was fined $12,000 after Keith Eisenmann fell to his death while repairing a barn roof.  The bill seeks to reduce the fine for families that are grieving the unexpected loss of a loved one.  Although a family farm will still be required to report the accidental work-related death of a loved one within eight hours, if a family fails to do so, the substitute bill drastically reduces the penalty.  The original bill passed Michigan’s House of Representatives late last year, but the substitute bill passed by the Michigan Senate clarifies the definition of family farm.  The substitute bill now goes back to the House of Representatives for approval.  

Bioengineered food standard now in effect.  January 1st marked the first day of compliance for the Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (the “Standard”).  The Standard requires food manufacturers, importers, and certain retailers to disclose to consumers that foods are or may be bioengineered.  The Standard defines bioengineered foods as “those that contain detectable genetic material that has been modified through certain lab techniques and cannot be created through conventional breeding or found in nature.”  The Agricultural Marketing Service has created a list of bioengineered foods to identify the crops or foods that are available in a bioengineered form.  For more information on the Bioengineered Food Disclosure Statement visit https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/be.

A bite into the cheesier side of trademark law.  Last month, a federal court in Virginia decided on a dispute between European and American cheesemakers.  The dispute arose over whether the term “Gruyere” should only be used to identify cheeses produced in the Gruyère region of France and Switzerland or whether the term can be used generically to describe a type of cheese, regardless of where the cheese is produced.  The Plaintiffs, two European business groups, filed an application with the United States Patent Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to register “Gruyere” as a certification mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1127 which would only allow cheesemakers to use the term “Gruyere” if the cheese came from the Gruyère region.  The U.S. Dairy Export Council and others (“Defendants”) filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ application with the Trademark Trials and Appeals Board (“TTAB”).  The TTAB found the term “Gruyere” to be generic term used to describe a type of cheese, not a cheese’s origin.  Plaintiffs’ then filed suit in a federal court in Virginia.  The federal court held that the “Gruyere” term had become a generic term to describe a type of cheese and failed to find the term worthy of trademark protection.  The court reasoned that although the term “Gruyere” may have once been understood to indicate where a cheese came from, over time “Gruyere” became a generic term to describe a type of cheese.  The court noted the term “Gruyere” has become generic overtime because: (1) U.S. regulations allow the use of the term “Gruyere” regardless of where the cheese is produced, (2) there is widespread sale and import of Gruyere cheese that is produced outside the Gruyère region, and (3) “Gruyere” is commonly used in dictionaries, media communications, and cheese industry events to describe a type of cheese without regards to where the cheese is produced.  Plaintiffs have since appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which means we still have a gooey situation on our hands.  

USDA and Department of Justice announce commitment to protect farmers against unfair anticompetitive practices.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) each announced their shared commitment to enforcing federal competition laws that are aimed at protecting farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural producers from unfair, anticompetitive practices.  In continuing their commitment to enforcing such laws, the agencies released a statement of principles and commitments which include: 

1. Farmers, ranchers, and other producers and growers deserve the benefits of free and fair competition.  The DOJ and USDA are therefore prioritizing matters impacting competition in agriculture. 
2. The agencies will develop an accessible, confidential process for agricultural producers to submit complaints about potential violations of the antitrust laws and the Packers and Stockyards Act.  
3. Increased cooperation between the agencies to enforce the laws that protect agricultural producers and to identify areas where Congress can help modernize rules and regulations.   

As we have seen over the past few months, the federal government is keen on preventing the consolidation of the agricultural industry in order promote fair and equal competition.  The announced commitments and principles demonstrate the government’s continued dedication to cracking down on unfair practices. 

The Ag Law Harvest

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Attorney and Research Specialist, OSU Agricultural and Resource Law Program

Did you know that a group of ferrets is called a business?  Ironically, we are in the business of ferreting out agricultural and resource law issues and providing you updates.  This edition of the Ag Law Harvest provides an update on recent court decisions from across the country that deal with the right to farm, food labeling, and conditional use permits for solar gardens. 

Right to Farm Act upheld in North Carolina.  Earlier this month, a three-judge panel on the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of North Carolina’s right to farm law.  In 1979, the North Carolina legislature enacted the Right to Farm Act (the “Act”).  In 2017 and 2018 the North Carolina legislature amended the Act by passing House Bill 467 and Senate Bill 711 (collectively referred to as “the Amendments”).  The Amendments sought to clarify and strengthen North Carolina’s right to farm law. The Plaintiffs argued that the Amendments violated North Carolina’s equivalent of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and that the Act exceeded the scope of North Carolina’s police power.  The Court of Appeals disagreed.  The Court recognized North Carolina’s interest in promoting and preserving agriculture and that North Carolina has the authority to regulate such an interest. The Court found that the Act’s limitation on potential nuisance claims against those engaged in agriculture, forestry, and other related operations helps to protect North Carolina’s interest, and encourages North Carolina’s goal to encourage the availability and continued “production of food, fiber, and other products.”   The Plaintiffs also argued that the Amendments were “private laws” to specifically protect the swine industry in violation of North Carolina’s Constitution.  The Court found, however, that the Act and the Amendments are laws of general applicability that apply to all agricultural and forestry operations, not just swine producers.  Lastly, the Plaintiffs argued that because the language in House Bill 467 limited the amount of compensation that can be recovered in a nuisance action against agricultural and forestry operations, the Plaintiffs’ right to a trial by jury had been impaired and/or abolished.  The Court ruled, however, that North Carolina has the authority to “define the circumstances under which a remedy is legally cognizable and those under which it is not.”  The Court found that there are many examples where compensation and remedies are limited within North Carolina law and that House Bill 467 did not “impair nor abolish the right to a jury trial.” 

Where is the cacao?  A California man (“Plaintiff”) is suing Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) for allegedly mislabeling Costco’s “Chocolate Almond Dipped Vanilla Ice Cream Bars” (the “Product”).  Plaintiff argues that because of the Product’s packaging and name, he expected the Product’s chocolate would have been predominately derived from cacao beans.  Plaintiff asserts that chocolate is defined by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and California law “as prepared from ground roasted cacao bean” and that it must be “made chiefly from cacao beans with a small amount of optional ingredients.”  Based on this definition, Plaintiff claims that Costco’s packaging is misleading because the Product’s chocolate contains mostly vegetable oils and small amounts of ingredients derived from cacao beans.  In his Complaint, Plaintiff argues that federal regulations require Costco to label the Product as “milk chocolate and vegetable oil coating” rather than just “chocolate.”  However, the court found that neither of Plaintiff’s cited regulations support a viable theory of liability against Costco.  First, the court could not find Plaintiff’s definition of chocolate anywhere in the Code of Federal Regulations.  Secondly, the court held that there are no federal regulations that require a certain amount of cacao bean ingredients as opposed to vegetable oils to be used in “chocolate” and that there is no language mandating the labeling of Costco’s Product as “milk chocolate and vegetable oil coating almond dipped ice cream bars.” The court also dismissed Plaintiff’s claim that Costco engaged in consumer deception with its Product’s label.  The court found that a reasonable consumer would not have been deceived by the Product’s label and that if there were any questions about the ingredients of the Product, a consumer could have resolved those questions by looking for the ingredients list on the back of the Product’s packaging. 

Conditional use permits at the center of the Minnesota’s “solar system.”  Move over Sun because conditional use permits are at the center of attention in Minnesota, for now.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals has recently ruled against a county’s decision to deny two conditional use permits to build solar gardens in McLeod County, Minnesota.  Two subsidiary companies of Nokomis Energy LLC (“Plaintiff”) each applied for a conditional use permit (“CUP”) to build separate, one-megawatt solar energy facilities.  McLeod County considered the two CUP applications at public hearings.  Two neighboring landowners expressed concerns about stray voltage and the number of fetal deaths among their livestock.  The landowners claimed that the number of fetal deaths increased after other solar facilities were constructed nearby.  Plaintiff did not deny that solar gardens can produce stray voltage but proposed to alleviate those concerns by hiring only licensed professionals and to allow third-party oversight during construction.  Plaintiff also offered to conduct stray voltage testing before and after construction and indicated that it would accept any conditions set forth by county officials.  The county, however, denied both applications on the basis that the proposed sites are “prime farmland” and because the stray voltage would negatively affect livestock.  The court rejected the county’s assessment.  First, the court held that preserving prime farmland is not a sufficient legal basis for denying a CUP.  Second, the court ruled that the county cannot deny a CUP without first considering whether any proposed conditions would eliminate any concerns about the application.  Here, the court found that McLeod County’s failure to address Plaintiff’s proposals to eliminate the stray voltage concerns amounts to an unjust denial of Plaintiff’s CUPs.    

Thanks for reading and Happy New Year! 

The Ag Law Harvest

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Attorney and Research Specialist, OSU Agricultural and Resource Law

Did you know that a male moose loses its antlers every year? Moose usually lose their antlers every winter and grow new ones in the spring.  Additionally, because of the lack of antlers during the winter months, a moose’s first line of defense is its sharp hooves, which can mortally wound a wolf or bear.  This edition of the Ag Law Harvest kicks around a few USDA announcements and FDA rule proposals and sheds some light on overtime compensation for California’s agricultural workers.      

USDA announces new micro-farm insurance policy.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (“USDA”) Risk Management Agency (“RMA”) announced that the USDA has developed a new micro farm insurance policy for agricultural producers with small-scale farms who sell locally.  The new insurance policy seeks to simplify recordkeeping and introduces insurance coverage for post-production costs and value-added products.  Farm operations that earn an average allowable revenue of $100,000 or less, or for carryover insureds, that earn an average allowable revenue of $125,000 or less are eligible for the policy.  The new insurance policy will be available for the 2022 crop year.  Crop insurance is sold and delivered sole through private crop insurance agents, a list of which can be found at the RMA Agent Locator.

USDA accepting applications to help rural communities get access to internet.  The USDA announced that it has begun accepting applications for up to $1.15 billion in loans and grants to help rural communities gain access to high-speed internet.  The announcement follows the recently enacted infrastructure bill, which provides another $2 billion in additional funding for USDA’s ReConnect Program.  According to the USDA, the funding will be available for projects that serve rural areas where at least 90% of the households lack broadband service at speeds of 100 megabits per second (Mbps) (download) and 20 Mbps (upload).  The USDA will give funding priority to projects that will serve people in low-density rural areas and areas lacking internet service speeds of at least 25 Mbps (download) and 3 Mbps (upload).  In making the funding decisions, the USDA will consider the economic needs of the community to be served and the extent to which a provider will offer affordable service options to the community.  

FDA proposing changes to testing requirements of pre-harvest agricultural water.  The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) published a proposed rule that would change some provisions of the FDA’s Produce Safety Rule.  The proposed rule seeks to replace the microbial criteria and testing requirements for pre-harvest agricultural water for covered produce other than sprouts.  Some of the proposed changes include: 

• Replacing the microbial quality criteria and testing requirements with new provisions for conducting pre-harvest agricultural water assessments for hazard identification and risk management purposes; 
• A new testing option for certain covered farms that elect to test their pre-harvest agricultural water for generic Escherichia coli (“E. coli”);
• Providing additional flexibility in responding to findings from pre-harvest agricultural water assessments; 
• Expedited implementation of mitigation measures for known or reasonably foreseeable hazards related to certain adjacent and nearby land uses; and 
• Required management review of pre-harvest agricultural water assessments. 

The FDA is accepting comments on the proposed rule until April 5, 2022.  

California’s overtime compensation for agricultural workers. In 2016, California passed Assembly Bill No. 1066 that slowly implemented overtime wages for California’s agricultural workers.  Beginning in 2022, agricultural employees are entitled to one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over eight hours in any workday or over 40 hours in any workweek.  However, the law only affects agricultural employers with 26 or more employees.  Agricultural employers with 25 or fewer employees will be required to follow the same overtime compensation structure beginning in 2025.  California will also begin to require that any work performed by an agricultural employee in excess of 12 hours in any workday be paid twice their regular rate of pay.  Again, this provision only effects agricultural employers with 26 or more employees but will go into effect for all agricultural employers in 2025.