The Dothan Eagle (AL)
FORMER POULTRY FARMER SUES CONAGRA
Date: September 24, 2002
Section: Local News
Page: 1-A and continued on 3-A
Article written by: Lee Ann Smith, Eagle Staff Writer
ELBA – A Dale County man who alleges a Coffee County poultry
processing plant retaliated against him for not signing a
contract with an arbitration clause in it is taking the company
to court.
Testimony began Monday in Lee Parker’s lawsuit against ConAgra
Poultry Company, Inc. Parker claims that the company cost him
his livelihood and interfered with him trying to sell his
chicken houses over the contract dispute.
Attorneys for Parker are asking the 10 woman and 4 man jury to
hear evidence in the lawsuit and return a punitive damage
judgment for his financial and economic loss, mental anguish and
emotional distress.
Attorney for ConAgra claim the company did not defraud or
conspire against Parker. They said that the grower had clean,
written contracts, which he signed and understood, had a number
of opportunities to sign the contract and did not have a
potential buyer for his houses for which they did not interfere.
“He made his own decisions and took a chance on a gamble,” said
Dale Marsh, attorney for ConAgra. “Lee Parker made some bad
choices but it’s not ConAgra’s fault.”
Parker first got into the contract poultry growers business in
1990 after meeting two managers from ConAgra enrolled in a Dale
Carnegie course. Two men suggested raising chickens would be
ideal for Parker, who could keep his regular job.
Parker testified the former Live Operations Manager, Jack Ezell,
told him if he didn’t like the poultry business, he could sell
the chicken houses and the land it was on. He said he was told
that same thing five years later when he refused to sign a
contract with an arbitration clause.
Believing that he could sell out if he ever changed his mind,
Parker said he built four chicken houses on the edge of his
property.
When presented with his initial contract, the day his first
biddies were delivered, Parker said that he was concerned with a
clause that stated it was flock-to-flock contract and could be
terminated within 10 days by either party, with or without
reason. He said it bothered him he invested almost $300,000 and
might only get to raise one flock.
He said his service representative Mary John Walker, told him
not to worry about the clause because it was standard procedure.
He testified she told him as long as he was producing quality
chickens, he would get biddies.
“Jack Ezell told me the same thing,” he said.
Parker borrowed $291,423 from the bank to build the houses.
Although he inquired about a contact he said all he received was
blue print requirements for the chicken houses.
Marsh said Parker was not under any obligation to build the
houses until he had a chance to see the contract.
“No, but I was relying on what I was told,” Parker said.
Marsh also said Parker did not have to accept the initial
contract when it was offered to him.
“I had to, the chicken houses were already built,” he said. “I
was not free within myself to not sign the contract.”
Parker said he was told ConAgra was operated like a big family –
a team. “A big part of the business was to take them at their
word,” he said. “And I did so for five years.”
During the five years that he had chicken houses, Parker met
other growers, some who mistrusted the company, which began to
affect him.
Parker joined the Alabama Contract Poultry Growers Association (CPGA)
and served on the board of the Wiregrass chapter.
The association was sponsoring a bill to protect various
contract commodity growers. One issue dealt with growers having
the right to negotiate contracts with the company.
When a new CEO at the company arrived, Barney Jarreau, Parker
testified he made an appointment to talk about he business, what
was happening to growers and to tell him if CPGA was used right
it could improve relationships, make better crops and satisfy
growers.
Parker testified an hour after the conversation, Jarreau and two
other top managers were at his chicken houses complaining about
his operation. He was given verbal reprimand.
Although growers signed contracts with the company in March
1995, they were told there would be another new contract in the
fall.
During the meeting in New Brockton to discuss the new contract,
Parker said someone asked the new Live Operations Manager Ken
Edwards if there was an arbitration clause. He said he wasn’t
sure, but there had been talk of it.
Marsh said ConAgra wanted a uniform contract for all its growers
across several states.
It was during that meeting, several growers announced they would
not sign a contract with an arbitration clause. Parker said
Edwards said if growers announced they would not sign a contract
with an arbitration clause. Parker said Edwards said if growers
decided they could not live with the new contract, ConAgra would
let them sell their chicken houses to qualified buyers.
Parker said he had some 30 inquiries on his property, but
ConAgra would not give any of the buyers a letter of intent to
grow chickens. One of the potential buyers was a man who managed
the chicken houses for Parker during the five years he had
contracts.
Parker testified if he had known ConAgra would not allow him to
sell his chicken houses he would have signed the new contract.
He said he had to sell his propane business to help get out of
debt, and for years the family lived off his wife’s salary,
their savings and credit cards while he paid off the loan on the
houses, interest on the loan and insurance costs on the
structures.
Testimony will continue in the trial today.
[Keith Belt was trial counsel for Lee Parker – the case settled
after the third day of trial]
