Lawsuit claims ministry ran unpaid labor scheme
Posted/updated on: November 25, 2025 at 9:45 pm
MARSHALL — A federal lawsuit claims an East Texas rehabilitation program built around manual labor instead functioned as an unpaid labor pipeline, one that seized participants’ tips, controlled their benefits and kept them working across several businesses. The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, details accusations against Timothy Wiseman, Wiseman Ministries Inc., Wiseman Transport LLC, ten unnamed defendants and the ministry’s recovery program, Isaiah 58 Farms.
According to our news partner KETK, Isaiah 58 Farms is a 150-acre income-producing commercial blackberry farm with housing for up to 40 men, allowing residents to “experience restoration and recovery.” Active since 2003, Wiseman Ministries says it helps individuals dealing with “life-controlling issues.” However, the lawsuit argues that Tim Wiseman and Wiseman Ministries failed to pay employees despite requiring them to work 40-hour weeks.
The lawsuit claims that instead of lawful wages, participants received “points” or credits.
“Program participants across these facilities routinely work forty or more hours per week,” the lawsuit reads. “Rather than being paid lawful wages for this work, participants receive only nominal ‘points’ or credits, typically valued by defendants at approximately $1 per hour or day, and they are not paid overtime compensation for hours worked over forty in a week.”
In addition to farm labor, workers were reportedly required to work at other Wiseman-associated businesses, including Gifts of Grace Resale Stores in Longview and Soapy King Car Wash in Henderson, where participants could receive cash tips. The suit alleges Wiseman seized those tips as well.
The lawsuit further states that the farm also operates a sawmill, with its products sold and transported through Wiseman Transports. All labor for the farm and sawmill is performed by program participants, including probationers from Harrison County such as the plaintiff in the case.
Beyond probationers, the program is said to include individuals who are homeless or discharged mental health patients from Harrison County. “Defendants recruit and accept these vulnerable individuals into the program, where they are required to perform uncompensated labor under the same unlawful practices,” the lawsuit says.
At Isaiah 58 Farms, defendants allegedly required or coerced participants to give up their SNAP benefits for program use. The average participant received $292 each month, of which $192 was taken for program expenses. Any unused portion of the remaining $100 was allegedly seized by Wiseman.
Participants could only receive cash payments for the “points” they had accrued if they “successfully completed” the program, a determination made solely by Tim Wiseman or his agents. Even when cash was issued, the lawsuit states that Wiseman or his agents had to approve how the money could be spent.
The lawsuit describes turnover at the facility as “exceedingly high.” Although the program operates with about 40 men, roughly five participants leave or are removed at any given time, before being quickly replaced, “ensuring a continuous flow of unpaid labor.”
KETK News spoke with J.D. McMullen, counsel for the plaintiff in the case, who says the plaintiff came forward after leaving the program and realizing that what he experienced was not rehabilitation, but exploitation.
McMullen now represents additional former participants who worked at Wiseman’s other locations, and “their stories echo the same pattern of unpaid labor, controls and misuse of benefits.”
McMullen believes the number of people affected could reach into the hundreds, with a clearer picture expected as the case progresses.
“We are seeking accountability, fair compensation for the work that was done and real change going forward,” McMullen said. “At the end of the day, this case is about protecting people and making sure these practices never happen again.”
The defense filed a motion to dismiss the case in early November, with the plaintiff’s legal team given until Dec. 8 to submit their response in opposition.
