Poultry Grower Action Against
Integrator Continues
Sean Brister
National AgLaw Center Graduate Fellow In an action for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and racial discrimination brought by an African-American poultry grower against a poultry integrator when the grower's contract was terminated, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the grower had alleged issues of material fact sufficient to survive the integrator's motions for summary judgment.
Blockum v. Fieldale Farms Corporation, 573 S.E.2d 36 (Ga. 2002).
Victor Blockum was an African-American poultry grower who lived in Banks County, Georgia.
See id. at 37. In October, 1999, he brought an action against Fieldale Farms Corporation (Fieldale), a poultry integrator, based on racial discrimination, breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and for violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1982, after Fieldale terminated its poultry production contract with him.
See id. Fieldale responded by filing a motion for summary judgment.
See id.
The trial court granted Fieldale's motion, and Blockum appealed that decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals.
See id. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.
See id. Blockum then appealed the matter to the Georgia Supreme Court.
See id. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and "expressed particular interest in whether the grant of summary judgment was precluded by the existence of genuine issues of material fact."
Id.
Blockum claimed that Fieldale's broiler manager informed him that before he could enter into a production contract with Fieldale, Blockum had to drop a discrimination case that he had previously filed against Gold Kist, another poultry integrator.
See id. Blockum also claimed that the manager stated that he could persuade Gold Kist to give him $10,000.00-$15,000.00 as a settlement, and that if Blockum followed these instructions, Fieldale would enter into a poultry production contract with him.
See id. at 38.
Blockum subsequently dropped his lawsuit against Gold Kist and received a settlement of $15,000.00.
See id. Blockum stated in a deposition that his belief that Gold Kist had discriminated against him resulted from ideas reinforced by another poultry farmer working with Blockum.
See id. He also stated that his lack of opportunity was not a result of discrimination but of the actions of the other poultry farmer, and that he filed the discrimination lawsuit at the urging of the other farmer.
See id.
After this settlement, Fieldale's manager communicated to Blockum that he would only receive a contract if he raised chickens in "clear-span" houses.
See id. It took Blockum two years to find a "clear-span" chicken house that could be leased.
See id. The manager told Blockum that he would help him lease a nine-house farm even though only two of the houses on that farm were "clear-span."
See id. The other seven houses would not be a problem, according to one of Fieldale's owners.
See id. Blockum and the owner of the farm made extensive repairs to the seven houses in anticipation of poultry deliveries from Fieldale.
See id. The Fieldale area supervisor informed Blockum that he would provide flocks for the two "clear span" houses at first, and that flocks for the others would soon follow.
See id. On April 15, 1997, a Fieldale representative and Blockum "executed a written contract that obligated Blockum to raise poultry . . . [for] Fieldale."
Id.
Blockum raised flocks for the two "clear-span" houses successfully and continued to inquire about flocks for the other seven houses.
See id. The Fieldale representative told Blockum that a later contract would cover poultry in those houses.
See id. Blockum claimed that the representative repeatedly refused to issue a letter of commitment covering all nine houses.
See id. Blockum and the farm owner agreed that Blockum would buy the two "clear-span" houses and lease the other seven houses.
See id. Blockum could not secure financing for the deal because the Fieldale representative refused to give the necessary letter of commitment.
See id.
After Fieldale refused to deliver chickens for the other seven houses, the owner of the farm sold the two "clear-span" houses to a white couple.
See id. The new owners of the "clear-span" houses received a letter of commitment from Fieldale after they entered into the contract to purchase the houses.
See id. Blockum then commenced this action against Fieldale.
See id.
Blockum originally filed a claim of economic coercion against Fieldale.
See id. The trial court granted summary judgment to Fieldale based on an expired statute of limitations.
See id. Blockum did not raise the issue on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court, and it was not addressed by the court.
See id.
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/archivecases/blockum.html
