Judge allows Salisbury residents’ second environmental lawsuit against Perdue to move forward

Listen to this article

A federal judge on Thursday allowed the second of two lawsuits against Perdue Farms over pollution in Salisbury to move forward, denying key parts of the agribusiness giant’s motion to dismiss.

U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher allowed the plaintiffs’ two most important claims, challenging Perdue‘s allegedly unlawful discharge of “forever chemicals” into Eastern Shore waterways, and refused to pause the lawsuit amid an investigation by the Maryland Department of the Environment.

The plaintiffs, Stephen Jones and Richard Renshaw, live near Perdue’s facility in Salisbury and say the company’s discharge of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, has contaminated more than 100 wells in the area, including theirs. The chemicals do not break down naturally and are linked to negative effects on human health and the environment.

Jones’s and Renshaw’s lawsuit, which is one of two brought by Salisburians against Perdue about PFAS, asks the court to order the company to stop polluting and to remediate the pollution. The other case is a proposed class-action lawsuit in which Jones and Renshaw would participate if a class is certified. In August, Gallagher allowed that case to move forward, denying most of a motion to dismiss.

“Today’s ruling is a critical step forward for the Salisbury community in its fight for accountability and justice,” attorneys Chase Brockstedt and Phil Federico said in a joint statement.

“With this ruling allowing our case under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to move forward, we will work to uncover the full extent of Perdue’s PFAS contamination and pursue every legal avenue to ensure the company is held fully accountable. The people of Salisbury deserve transparency, accountability, and safe drinking water.”

The ruling narrows the lawsuit and wasn’t a total victory for the plaintiffs.

Gallagher allowed the first two counts, alleging violations of a prohibition on open dumping. But she dismissed the third count, saying it was duplicative, and the fourth, saying the plaintiffs didn’t show they had standing based on generalized harm to the environment. Their claim that the contamination hurts their “recreational, aesthetic, and/or commercial interests” was inadequate, she ruled.

In a Thursday interview, Federico downplayed the two dismissed claims.

“Certainly, these counts were pled in the order of priority,” Federico said. Losing on the duplicative third claim was “not a setback of any significance whatsoever to us.”

Perdue has provided Jones and Renshaw with free bottled water since late 2024, and has offered to set up point-of-entry treatment systems to decontaminate their well water. Jones accepted the offer; Renshaw declined it.

Testing showed non-detectable levels of PFAS in Jones’s water after the system was installed, but Gallagher’s opinion noted the systems cannot protect users from chemicals that have already passed through and absorbed into the pipes.

Gallagher said those efforts to alleviate the harm of the pollution were not sufficient to render the lawsuit moot.

Perdue spokesperson Andrea Staub argued Gallagher’s ruling was a win for the company, narrowing the case from a “broader environmental referendum” to a “limited legal dispute focused on technical regulatory issues.”

“Rulings on motions to dismiss are not overly noteworthy,” Staub stated in an email. “However, today’s ruling is a clear win. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ most extreme claims and narrowed this case substantially.”

“Perdue will continue doing what it has been doing all along: cooperating with regulators, providing clean drinking water, and addressing issues responsibly and transparently.”