- The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case of two executives from Quality Egg who were sentenced to prison under the Park Doctrine, also known as the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine, after a 2010 salmonellosis outbreak which may have sickened as many as 56,000 consumers. Austin “Jack” DeCoster, the principal operator, and his son, Peter DeCoster, the chief operating officer, were sentenced to three months in prison and were fined $100,000 each after pleading guilty to misdemeanor criminal liability charges (one count of introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce — shell eggs contaminated with Salmonella enteriditis). The sentences were affirmed by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The DeCosters sought Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of the prison sentences in January, alleging that the strict criminal liability standard (no proof of criminal intent) resulted in a denial of due process. (For more detailed background information on the case, click here.)
- At trial, Quality Egg pleaded guilty to a count of bribery of a public official, a count of introducing a misbranded food into interstate commerce with intent to defraud, and a count of introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce, and was fined $6.79 million. The DeCosters’ guilty plea included a stipulation that nothing in the record indicated they had actual knowledge the eggs were infected with Salmonella. At the sentencing phase of the trial, however, the district court was entitled to consider information regarding the background, character, and conduct of the defendants, and concluded that the DeCosters had created a work environment “where employees not only felt comfortable disregarding regulations…but may have felt pressure to do so.”
- It is not clear to what extent the DeCoster outcome will be relevant to future Park Doctrine cases, given that information before the trial court concerning past conduct, including FDA inspection findings of widespread insanitary conditions, appeared to be an important factor in the decision to impose prison sentences. Thus, evidence of a strong company culture of regulatory compliance, with responsible corporate oversight, could distinguish the DeCoster case from future situations.