The charges against Hershey's: A detailed look

UNDERSTANDING THE CLAIMS
Rakestraw v. The Hershey Company, et al. — Case No. 2:25-cv-02682-JWB-TJJ

WHERE THIS CASE STANDS

This matter is currently before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. The motion is pending before the Honorable John W. Broomes, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas. While the motion remains under consideration, discovery is stayed.

The eleven counts summarized below reflect the claims presently asserted. The Court’s forthcoming ruling will determine which claims, if any, proceed to discovery, are dismissed, or are permitted to proceed with amendment.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This website discusses a pending legal action. The claims described herein are allegations set forth in a court filing and have not been adjudicated. Defendants deny liability. This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

INTRODUCTION

On January 14, 2026, Plaintiff Donnie Lee Rakestraw, Jr. filed a Second Amended Complaint against The Hershey Company, Lee Timmons, Karen Powell, and Bill Maloy in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

The Complaint asserts eleven counts arising out of Plaintiff’s employment at Hershey’s pretzel manufacturing facility in Edgerton, Kansas. The allegations include disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, wage and hour violations, and related claims under federal and Kansas law.

Plaintiff’s allegations are supported, in part, by internal training materials, medical documentation, physical layout evidence, and communications obtained prior to filing. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 27, 2026. Plaintiff submitted a Surreply on February 9, 2026. The motion is currently under advisement.

THE ELEVEN COUNTS

Count I – Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation (ADA)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were aware of his neuropathy and failed to provide reasonable accommodations, including anti-fatigue safety mats, despite their availability and internal policies governing their use.

Count II – Disability Discrimination (ADA)
Plaintiff alleges disparate treatment based on disability, including denial of safety equipment provided to non-disabled employees, assignment to a workstation lacking such equipment, and refusal to permit a voluntary position exchange.

Count III – Retaliation (ADA)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants terminated his employment in retaliation for requesting accommodations and asserting rights protected under the ADA.

Count IV – Unpaid Required Work (FLSA)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants required pre-shift activities, including sanitation procedures and donning personal protective equipment, to be performed off the clock without compensation. Plaintiff further alleges that these practices affected approximately 120+ similarly situated employees and intends to seek conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

Count V – Retaliation for Reporting Safety Violations (OSHA)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants terminated his employment after he reported workplace safety concerns, including the denial of safety equipment and failure to document a workplace injury.

Count VI – Workers’ Compensation Retaliation (Kansas Law)
Plaintiff alleges termination in retaliation for reporting a work-related injury and pursuing workers’ compensation benefits, in violation of Kansas law.

Count VII – Fraud and Intentional Misrepresentation
Plaintiff alleges that medical documentation associated with his injury contained materially inconsistent conclusions regarding causation and classification, resulting in misrepresentation of the nature of the injury.

Count VIII – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, including denial of safety measures, failure to provide treatment, and retaliatory termination, causing severe emotional distress.

Count IX – Disability Discrimination Revived by Equitable Tolling
Plaintiff alleges that equitable tolling applies due to delayed discovery of federal claims, including circumstances involving alleged misclassification of injury and reliance on legal advice.

Count X – Hostile Work Environment (ADA)
Plaintiff alleges a pattern of conduct based on disability that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.

Count XI – Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
Plaintiff alleges termination for engaging in protected activities, including reporting safety concerns and requesting accommodations, in violation of Kansas public policy.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

The Court will issue a ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. That ruling will determine which claims proceed. If any claims survive, the case will move into discovery.

Individuals who worked at Hershey’s Edgerton, Kansas facility and believe they may have been affected by the wage and hour practices described in Count IV may wish to consult independent counsel regarding their rights.

Last updated: March 30, 2026

Unveiling the allegations

This section outlines the specific charges filed against Hershey's. We delve into the details of the alleged actions and the legal framework guiding our pursuit of accountability. Our aim is to bring transparency to the claims and the foundations of this legal case.

The journey through the courts

Understanding the judicial process is crucial. Here, we track the progress of the charges, from initial filings to current status. This timeline offers insight into the stages of litigation and what each step means for the overall case. Stay informed on every development.

The unwavering fight for justice

Our commitment to seeking justice remains paramount. This section reiterates the core principles driving the case and the determination to hold Hershey's accountable. We want readers to understand the significance of these charges and our resolve to see them through to a just conclusion.

View all charges

The charges against Hershey's: A detailed look

WHERE THIS CASE STANDS

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

INTRODUCTION

THE ELEVEN COUNTS

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Unveiling the allegations

The journey through the courts

The unwavering fight for justice

Statement of Claims

Count I – Failure to Provide Required Safety Equipment
Defendant failed to provide mandated rubber safety mats despite written policy and training materials requiring their use.

Count II – Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation (ADA Violations)
Defendant was informed of Plaintiff’s neuropathy and related limitations and refused to provide reasonable accommodations as required under disability law.

Count III – Failure to File a Mandatory Injury Report
Defendant declined to document an on-the-job injury after Plaintiff reported and visibly exhibited wounds, in violation of workplace reporting standards.

Count IV – Denial of Medical Treatment / Failure to Render Aid
Defendant failed to provide basic medical attention or first aid after being notified of an active workplace injury.

Count V – Assignment to Unsafe Work Conditions
Defendant knowingly required Plaintiff to work at the only station without safety mats while numerous alternative employees were available, creating foreseeable risk of injury.

Count VI – Unpaid Required Work (Wage and Hour Violations)
Defendant required employees to don and doff protective gear off the clock, resulting in uncompensated work time and systematic underpayment.

Count VII – Retaliation for Reporting Safety Concerns
After Plaintiff raised safety and accommodation issues, Defendant engaged in retaliatory conduct contrary to federal and state protections.

Count VIII – Wrongful Termination Following Workplace Injury
Plaintiff was terminated after sustaining injuries caused by Defendant’s assignments and after reporting safety violations.

The charges against Hershey's: A detailed look

WHERE THIS CASE STANDS

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

INTRODUCTION

THE ELEVEN COUNTS

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Unveiling the allegations

The journey through the courts

The unwavering fight for justice

Statement of Claims

Count I – Failure to Provide Required Safety EquipmentDefendant failed to provide mandated rubber safety mats despite written policy and training materials requiring their use.

Count II – Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation (ADA Violations)Defendant was informed of Plaintiff’s neuropathy and related limitations and refused to provide reasonable accommodations as required under disability law.

Count III – Failure to File a Mandatory Injury ReportDefendant declined to document an on-the-job injury after Plaintiff reported and visibly exhibited wounds, in violation of workplace reporting standards.

Count IV – Denial of Medical Treatment / Failure to Render AidDefendant failed to provide basic medical attention or first aid after being notified of an active workplace injury.

Count V – Assignment to Unsafe Work ConditionsDefendant knowingly required Plaintiff to work at the only station without safety mats while numerous alternative employees were available, creating foreseeable risk of injury.

Count VI – Unpaid Required Work (Wage and Hour Violations)Defendant required employees to don and doff protective gear off the clock, resulting in uncompensated work time and systematic underpayment.

Count VII – Retaliation for Reporting Safety ConcernsAfter Plaintiff raised safety and accommodation issues, Defendant engaged in retaliatory conduct contrary to federal and state protections.

Count VIII – Wrongful Termination Following Workplace InjuryPlaintiff was terminated after sustaining injuries caused by Defendant’s assignments and after reporting safety violations.

Count I – Failure to Provide Required Safety Equipment
Defendant failed to provide mandated rubber safety mats despite written policy and training materials requiring their use.

Count II – Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation (ADA Violations)
Defendant was informed of Plaintiff’s neuropathy and related limitations and refused to provide reasonable accommodations as required under disability law.

Count III – Failure to File a Mandatory Injury Report
Defendant declined to document an on-the-job injury after Plaintiff reported and visibly exhibited wounds, in violation of workplace reporting standards.

Count IV – Denial of Medical Treatment / Failure to Render Aid
Defendant failed to provide basic medical attention or first aid after being notified of an active workplace injury.

Count V – Assignment to Unsafe Work Conditions
Defendant knowingly required Plaintiff to work at the only station without safety mats while numerous alternative employees were available, creating foreseeable risk of injury.

Count VI – Unpaid Required Work (Wage and Hour Violations)
Defendant required employees to don and doff protective gear off the clock, resulting in uncompensated work time and systematic underpayment.

Count VII – Retaliation for Reporting Safety Concerns
After Plaintiff raised safety and accommodation issues, Defendant engaged in retaliatory conduct contrary to federal and state protections.

Count VIII – Wrongful Termination Following Workplace Injury
Plaintiff was terminated after sustaining injuries caused by Defendant’s assignments and after reporting safety violations.