The U.S. Department of Agriculture on Sunday ordered the recall of 143 million pounds of beef from a Southern California slaughterhouse that is the subject of an animal-abuse investigation.

The recall will affect beef products dating to Feb. 1, 2006, that came from Chino-based Westland/Hallmark Meat Co., the federal agency said. The company provided meat to various federal programs.

Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer said his department has evidence that Westland did not routinely contact its veterinarian when cattle became non-ambulatory after passing inspection, violating health regulations.

"Because the cattle did not receive complete and proper inspection, Food Safety and Inspection Service has determined them to be unfit for human food and the company is conducting a recall," Schafer said in a statement.

A phone message left for Westland president Steve Mendell was not returned Sunday.

Agriculture officials said the massive recall surpasses a 1999 ban of 35 million pounds of ready-to-eat meats. No illnesses have been linked to the newly recalled meat, and officials said the health threat was likely small.

Officials estimate that about 37 million pounds of the recalled beef went to school programs, but they believe most of the meat probably has already been eaten.

"We don't know how much product is out there right now. We don't think there is a health hazard, but we do have to take this action," said Dr. Dick Raymond, USDA Undersecretary for Food Safety.

Federal officials suspended operations at Westland/Hallmark after an undercover video from the Humane Society of the United States surfaced showing crippled and sick animals being shoved with forklifts.

Two former employees were charged Friday. Five felony counts of animal cruelty and three misdemeanors were filed against a pen manager. Three misdemeanor counts — illegal movement of a non-ambulatory animal — were filed against an employee who worked under that manager. Both were fired.

Authorities said the video showed workers kicking, shocking and otherwise abusing "downer" animals that were apparently too sick or injured to walk into the slaughterhouse. Some animals had water forced down their throats, San Bernardino County prosecutor Michael Ramos said.

No charges have been filed against Westland, but an investigation by federal authorities continues.

About 150 school districts around the nation have stopped using ground beef from Hallmark Meat Packing Co., which is associated with Westland. Two fast-food chains, Jack-In-the-Box and In-N-Out, said they would not use beef from Westland/Hallmark.

Most of the beef was sent to distribution centers in bulk packages. The USDA said it will work with distributors to determine how much meat remains.

Federal regulations call for keeping downed cattle out of the food supply because they may pose a higher risk of contamination from E. coli, salmonella or mad cow disease since they typically wallow in feces and their immune systems are often weak.

Upon learning about the recall, some legislators criticized the USDA, saying the federal agency should conduct more thorough inspections to ensure tainted beef doesn't get to the public.

"Today marks the largest beef recall in U.S. history, and it involves the national school lunch program and other federal food and nutrition programs," said U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. "This begs the question: How much longer will we continue to test our luck with weak enforcement of federal food safety regulations?"

Advocacy groups also weighed in, noting the problems at Westland wouldn't have been revealed had it not been for animal right activists.

"On the one hand, I'm glad that the recall is taking place. On the other, it's somewhat disturbing, given that obviously much of this food has already been eaten," said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union. "It's really closing the barn door after the cows left."

Christian Schmidt-Sommerfeld, Munich's chief prosecutor, said the raids were done in cooperation with investigators in Bochum who are looking into more claims of tax evasion, following the resignation of Klaus Zumwinkel, chief executive of Deutsche Post. Bochum prosecutors last week said Zumwinkel is suspected of evading about 1 million euros ($1.5 million) in taxes by transferring money to tax haven Liechtenstein.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel made clear Monday that she will press Liechtenstein for greater transparency, arguing that the tiny country's reputation is at stake.

So far, no other people suspected in the investigation have been named, but the government acknowledged over the weekend that its Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, had paid an informant some euro5 million ($7.3 million) for a list with the names of account holders from a Liechtenstein bank.

"The government received an unsolicited offer of information," Ulrich Wilhelm, Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman told reporters Monday.

An animal abuse investigation at a California slaughterhouse has led to the largest beef recall in the nation's history - the bulk of which was sent to school lunch programs.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recalled 143 million pounds of frozen beef Sunday, suspecting some of it came from steers too sick to stand up.

Up to 37 million pounds of the questionable meat went to school programs and officials fear it has already been eaten by thousands of children.

"We don't know how much product is out there right now. We don't think there is a health hazard, but we do have to take this action," said Dr. Dick Raymond, USDA undersecretary for food safety.

Raymond said no illnesses have been linked to recalled beef. Schools spokeswoman Melody Meyer could not say yesterday whether any of the recalled meat has been served in city schools.

"We will have to review the situation as more facts are known," Meyer said. "We're not going to serve any beef until we confirm that the meat is safe."

City schools are closed this week for winter break. Officials hope to have more information before school resumes Feb. 25, Meyer said.

The recall was limited to frozen beef shipped from the Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. in Chino, Calif., dating from Feb. 1, 2006.

The slaughterhouse came under fire after an undercover Humane Society video showed sick cattle being shoved with a forklift, and workers kicking and shocking steers that were too sick or injured to walk.

Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer said Westland/Hallmark violated health regulations by frequently failing to have veterinarians examine sick cows.

We called around to firms to find out whether associate salaries, called economically-irrational in some quarters, have finally (or, at least, for now) hit a ceiling. The answer seems to be yes.

“We’re not going to do anything,” said Orrick spokeman Allan Whitescarver, noting that law firms compete for talent with investment banks and consulting firms. “Times aren’t good for them either,” said Whitescarver. “We’re going to sit tight and keep the salaries capped.”

We’d venture to guess, however, that few big firm chairmen wake up on Jan. 1 and say, “you know what, our associates don’t make enough money; let’s bump their salaries!” What typically happens is that a single firm, in an attempt to flex its muscles, raises salaries, and everyone else follows, fearing the fallout if they don’t. Simpson Thacher was the eager beaver last year.

Whitescarver leaves room for this possibility. “If other firms move up, we and others will follow.”

Other firms, including WilmerHale and Milbank, also told the Law Blog that, for now, first-year salaries will stay at $160,000.

The justices, ranging in age from 53 to 87, are the last people to worry about such things in their own lives. They have life tenure and no mandatory retirement age.

Yet the justices are confronted by allegations of age discrimination in five cases this term. While the sheer number of cases probably can be explained away as coincidence, the topic is one of growing importance as more people work longer because of economic necessity or by choice.

"The importance of protecting older workers as the work force ages is enormous," said Stu Cohen, AARP's director of legal advocacy. "More older workers remain in the workforce and projections are that the percentage will continue to expand."

The percentage of people 65 and over who continue to work has grown from 10.8 percent in 1985 to 16 percent last year, AARP said. For people 55 to 64, the numbers also are up, from 54.2 percent in 1985 to 63.8 percent in 2007.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to workers who are at least 40. It prohibits discrimination based on age in hiring and firing, promotions and pay.

"Literally every employee at some point is going to be protected by it because all of us get older. It's true whether you are a male, female, minority or not. It's not true for any other statute. It's a very broad class of protected people," said Steven R. Wall, a partner at the Morgan, Lewis & Bockius law firm in Philadelphia.

The cases at the court this year include what kind of evidence an employee may present to bolster an age discrimination claim; whether retirement-age workers are entitled to disability payments; and whether federal workers who complain about age discrimination are protected from retaliation.

The last issue is the subject of oral arguments Tuesday in a case involving a postal worker in Puerto Rico who complained of both discrimination and retaliation. Federal courts dismissed the retaliation claim, saying there is nothing in the age discrimination law that allows such claims by federal employees.

Other anti-discrimination laws do provide protection from retaliation for government workers, said Eric Dreiband, former general counsel to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The language in the laws are different "and it would appear deliberately different," Dreiband said.

The AARP and the National Treasury Employees Union are backing the employee.

The most important case from employers' perspective involves "me-too" evidence in a lawsuit filed by a woman who was 51 when she was laid off by a subsidiary of Sprint Nextel Corp.

The fight at the Supreme Court is over whether she should be able to introduce testimony from other employees who also say they were victims of age discrimination, even though they worked for other supervisors.

The employee, Ellen Mendelsohn, argued that such evidence is critical to establishing a culture of discrimination.

"Is it fair to an employer that somebody can call co-workers to testify, even though they had nothing to do with the plaintiff or her boss?" said Wall. "To sum it up from a management attorney's perspective, it's a very dangerous case because you can see how that applies no matter the form of discrimination."

A third case tests whether a retirement plan can treat disabled employees of different ages but similar tenures differently.

Kentucky's public retirement system prohibits employees who become disabled and are eligible for retirement from collecting disability retirement benefits, which can be more generous than regular pensions. The state says those employees are entitled only to their regular pensions.

By contrast, an employee who becomes disabled before he is eligible for retirement will receive a disability pension.

A former employee, backed by the EEOC, says the older worker often will receive lower benefits, sometimes dramatically so, in violation of the age discrimination law.

Decisions in all the cases are expected by late June.

As baby boomers get older, an increase in age discrimination suits seems likely, said David B. Ritter, a partner at the Neal Gerber & Eisenberg law firm in Chicago.

"Telling these folks they're too old or having them thinking that their younger boss thinks they're too old, they're not going to go quietly into the night," Ritter said.

Cohen, the AARP executive, said his group's research suggests that some people wish to continue working because they believe it will help them stay healthy.

Some workers also cling to their jobs because they need the health insurance, if not the paycheck. "They are mostly there out of necessity," Cohen said.