C.F.R. » Title 9 » CHAPTER III—FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE › SUBCHAPTER E—REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FEDERAL MEAT INSPECTION ACT, THE POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT, AND THE EGG PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT › PART 416—SANITATION

9 C.F.R. § 416.5

Employee hygiene

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Cleanliness. All persons working in contact with product, food-contact surfaces, and product-packaging materials must adhere to hygienic practices while on duty to prevent adulteration of product and the creation of insanitary conditions.

(b) Clothing. Aprons, frocks, and other outer clothing worn by persons who handle product must be of material that is disposable or readily cleaned. Clean garments must be worn at the start of each working day and garments must be changed during the day as often as necessary to prevent adulteration of product and the creation of insanitary conditions.

(c) Disease control. Any person who has or appears to have an infectious disease, open lesion, including boils, sores, or infected wounds, or any other abnormal source of microbial contamination, must be excluded from any operations which could result in product adulteration and the creation of insanitary conditions until the condition is corrected.

[64 FR 56417, Oct. 20, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: Perez v. Mountaire Farms, Inc., 650 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Perez v. Mountaire Farms, Inc., 650 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “[3] *361 As required by Mountaire's company rules and the regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Agriculture, 9 C.F.R. § 416.5 , and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 29 C.”
Anderson v. Perdue Farms, Inc., 604 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (M.D. Ala. 2009). · cites it 2× “10 (b)(6) (hair nets and beard néts); 9 C.F.R. § 416.5 (b), 29 C.F.R. § 1910.136 & 21 C.”
Helmert v. Butterball, LLC, 805 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Ark. 2011). “See9C.F.R. § 416.5(2011). 6 . Any defense asserted by Butterball, such as the de minimis defense or any one other than the issue of whether donning and doffing smocks is integral and indispensable to production employees' principal activities, is not addressed here.”
Weissman v. Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., 2013 WI App 109 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “See 9 C.F.R. § 416.5 ; 21 C.F.R. § 110.10 . As to the "primarily" component, the employees take the position that "Tyson, and not its employees, primarily benefits from the requirement.”
Hayslett v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Tenn. 2023). · cites it 4× “” 9 C.F.R. § 416.5 (b). The regulation further requires the exclusion of “[a]ny person who has or appears to have an infectious disease .”
Fields v. Brown (E.D. Tex. 2021). “” 9 C.F.R. § 416.5 (c). The FSIS also has regulations requiring facilities to “monitor and document any work-related conditions of establishment workers,” to “encourage early reporting of symptoms of injuries and ill- nesses,” to provide “[n]otification to employees of the…”
Wazelle v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (N.D. Tex. 2021). “, 9 C.F.R. §§ 416.5 (b)-(c), 416.2(b). Preliminarily, the Court takes note that the Supreme Court has held “that state laws of general application (workplace safety regulations, building codes, etc.”
Garcia v. Swift Beef Co. (N.D. Tex. 2021). “, 9 C.F.R. §§ 416.5 (b)-(c), 416.2(b). Preliminarily, the Court takes note that the Supreme Court has held “that state laws of general application (workplace safety regulations, building codes, etc.”
Williams v. Wingrove (5th Cir. 2025). “” 9 C.F.R. § 416.5 (a); § 416.5(c) (requiring “hygienic practices while on duty to prevent adulteration of product and the creation of insanitary conditions”); § 416.”
— 9 C.F.R. § 416.5(2011) — 1 case
Helmert v. Butterball, LLC, 805 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Ark. 2011). “See9C.F.R. § 416.5(2011). 6 . Any defense asserted by Butterball, such as the de minimis defense or any one other than the issue of whether donning and doffing smocks is integral and indispensable to production employees' principal activities, is not addressed here.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.