The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in a case against Tyson Foods. The plaintiffs–workers at an Iowa pork processing plant–are seeking to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the time they had spent putting on and taking off protective gear and other work-related functions. Such “donning and doffing” cases are common labor disputes, and the Supreme Court has decided several on narrow grounds in the last five years.
Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo focuses on the application of federal labor laws and the procedural rules government class actions. From a broad perspective, it gives the Court another opportunity to reshape an area of law that has long been a target for corporate America.
In 2013, a federal court in Nebraska ordered Tyson Foods to pay approximately $5.8 million to workers who challenged the donning and doffing polices in a class action lawsuit originally filed in 2008. A Nebraska Appellate Court in August this year ruled in favor of Tyson Foods after the company challenged the class certification. That ruling came just two months after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Tyson Foods’ challenge the could involve more than 3,300 current and former hourly works at the Iowa plant.
The Tyson Case is unique because the central issue is the use of statistical estimates to establish liability, which could potentially affect a wide range of class actions in different industries. Because Tyson is reported to not have kept accurate hourly records, lawyers for the workers used statistical experts to estimate the average underpayment. The estimates were based on “744 videotaped observations” of how workers spent their time, the plaintiffs lawyer told the Court.
However, Tyson Foods’ lawyer argued that the approach improperly averaged the hours of employees who performed “vastly different activities” and spent various amounts of time donning and doffing from 30 seconds to 10 minutes. Under those estimates, more than 200 employees included in a class of more than 3,000 workers potentially could receive compensation even though they did not work overtime, Tyson Foods’ said.
Tyson Foods vs. Bouaphakeo is one of four cases involving class-action lawsuits being considered by the Supreme Court this term, which began last month. Recent Supreme Court decisions have tightened the reins on class-actions, requiring plaintiff attorneys to demonstrate each member of a class actually suffered damages, rather than relying on projections.
It was not immediately clear which direction the justices may go in this case when the issue is decided this summer. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote both of the prior pro-business precedents, appeared most open to Tyson’s arguments. Chief Justice John Roberts appeared concerned a ruling for the workers could expand the use of statistical evidence more broadly, at least in wage cases.
However, Justice Anthony Kennedy sketched out his view that the court’s ruling should focus on specific provisions of labor law favoring employees when businesses do not keep track of hours worked, rather than on class-action principles. Justice Kennedy suggested that the defendant Tyson Foods had committed litigation missteps that could doom its case. “I just don’t understand your arguments,” Justice Kennedy told the Tyson’s lawyer.
