Including liquidated damages, the verdict reached about $5.8 million. The case went to trial, and the jury awarded the class $2,892,378.70, to be divided among the members of the class. Those 444 were also part of the Rule 23 class. They sought, over Tyson’s objection, to sue on behalf of a class, and a federal judge approved a class of 3,334 members under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (governing class actions) and conditionally added 444 members as part of a so-called “collective action” under another part of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. In their lawsuits, the workers claimed that the process of donning, doffing, washing up, and walking to and from their work stations lengthened their workweek beyond the forty hours specified by federal law for regular pay, so they were entitled to overtime pay. The company also paid a fixed amount for workers who used knives - so-called “K-Code time.” Four minutes of such time-related pay per day was to cover the donning and doffing for part of the overall span of time covered by the class claim, and eight minutes per day in the remaining part of the class period. The workers who sued were paid on a time system keyed to the period between the point when the first hog passed their station until the last hog had passed. Each position required workers to do specific chores and to wear different kinds of sanitary items and personal protection equipment. The plant had two shifts, with workers doing more than 400 distinct tasks. The plant had a payroll of about 1,300 workers on production lines either in the killing zone or in the meat processing areas. Tyson is attempting to overturn a verdict of nearly $6 million in damages in a lawsuit brought by six of its workers on behalf of a class of current and former hourly workers at the Iowa plant. The new case grows out of that kind of dispute at a pork processing plant in Storm Lake, Iowa, operated by Tyson Foods, Inc., a major packing company in pork and poultry products. This case also brings back to the Court a familiar complaint by workers in factories: that they do not get paid for the time that it takes for them to put on and take off specialized clothing or gear needed to do their jobs - the “donning and doffing” compensation question, the subject of several rulings in recent years. The core of the disagreement is whether everyone joined in the suing class must prove, individually, that he was harmed by the claimed misconduct that is the common target. On Tuesday, this clash of perceptions returns to the Court, with review of the latest class-action dispute, Tyson Foods v. To the lawyers, they are doing a noble thing, holding companies accountable when there may be no better mechanism to do so for instances in which individual claims are small but the overall value to the class is potentially in the millions of dollars. To several of the Justices, such group challenges are seen as blunt instruments for forcing companies to settle to avoid the cost of a trial, even if they might win on the merits, and as an easy way to handsomely reward class-action attorneys. In decision after decision, a majority of the Court has shown deepening skepticism about lawsuits technically known as “class actions.” Lawyers who have groups of clients pursuing common grievances - often against big corporations - have known for years that their cases are an endangered species in the Supreme Court.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |