They’re clashing with Boar’s Head.
Three former distributors from the New York area who took legal action against Boar’s Head a while back regarding alleged harsh labor practices recently scored a win in a New York appellate court. They argued that the deli meat giant exercised “complete control” over labor policies, which could result in Boar’s Head having to pay out millions in unpaid wages.
One distributor, Frank Barone, worked with Boar’s Head for over two decades until 2019. Sal Savasta had a 15-year tenure, while Anthony Lerkala operated a smaller route. In their court filing with the New York Court of Appeals, they claimed they faced pressure and harassment to sell their businesses below market value after being accused of various “alleged” infractions.
Rachel Demarest Gold, an attorney from Abrams Fensterman, described the company’s tactics as shocking, referring to them as “shakedown and bullying.”
The distributors asserted that Boar’s Head effectively treated them as employees, and if their claims are successful, the company might have to comply with numerous wage and labor laws, potentially owing millions to former distributors.
Justin Kelton, another attorney from Abrams Fensterman, pointed out that Boar’s Head’s management style was overly controlling, limiting key aspects of transactions while providing inadequate compensation.
This lawsuit adds to the challenges faced by the country’s largest deli meat supplier. The company, which operates nationwide, saw its reputation significantly damaged in 2024 due to a listeria outbreak linked to one of its manufacturing facilities in Virginia, which resulted in the unfortunate deaths of ten customers. Following numerous lawsuits—many of which were settled—the potential exists for at least 14 additional claimants to come forward, according to food safety lawyer Brendan Flaherty.
Boar’s Head declined to comment on ongoing legal issues when contacted.
The distributors detailed in court documents that they were compelled to relinquish valuable supermarket accounts over time. Boar’s Head cited “minor complaints” and “alleged violations” as reasons for these actions.
Barone claimed that the company severed her relationship with a Stop & Shop in the Bronx, leading her to lose a $210,000 account without any compensation. She was supposedly at fault for having a Stop & Shop decal placed incorrectly.
Additionally, the company banned her from another supermarket, citing the owner’s “contemptuous behavior,” only to reassign her to a different distributor, which indicated to the owner that with Boar’s Head, it was business as usual.
By 2018, Barone had seen several profitable accounts stripped away, which, according to her, indicated that Boar’s Head aimed to sever ties with her. She alleged they went so far as to create false complaints.
Lower courts had earlier rejected the distributors’ main argument that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors, due to the control Boar’s Head allegedly exerted over daily operations. Court documents highlighted requirements such as wearing specific uniforms.
In February, the Court of Appeal agreed that Boar’s Head coerced its distributors into selling their businesses at a loss and breached agreements, inflicting “economic duress.”
“Candy Bar Incident”
Sal Savasta previously owned a deli but was required to sell it before acquiring a Boar’s Head route in 2004 for $1.1 million. He was reported to have violated company policies in 2008 after running a separate business with ATM machines, leading to a year-long suspension from developing new accounts.
In 2014, he faced further violation claims for not enforcing a promotion for imported Swiss cheese. As issues accumulated, he was ordered to fly to Boar’s Head’s Sarasota office for an urgent meeting or risk missing out on product deliveries. He did book a flight but was then told to wait until the next day, after which he learned he had 30 days to sell his business.
Court documents suggest that this hurried timeline prevented him from obtaining a fair market value for his business.
Lerkala, who bought a Connecticut route in 2011 for $913,520, faced challenges after an employee allegedly didn’t capture payment for some candy bars during a delivery. This incident is said to have been a pretext for Boar’s Head to pressure Lerkala into selling his route.
When he lost another account in 2014 due to a promotional inquiry gone wrong, he reported feeling financially “paralyzed” as a result.
Boar’s executives acknowledged that Lerkala followed company protocols and did nothing wrong, according to the legal complaint.
Demarest Gold indicated that further developments in the case are expected soon, including a schedule for discovery.
