United States: Supreme Court Hears Argument in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo—and a Blockbuster Class Certification Ruling Seems Less Likely

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral argument in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146, a case that has been closely watched for its potential to narrow the circumstances in which a class action may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and a collective action for unpaid wages certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). We previously described this case in prior blog posts. One of us attended the argument, and the other closely reviewed the transcript (pdf). Our combined reaction: The anticipated decision in this case may focus on an FLSA issue and, if so, then it seems unlikely to mark a sea change in the rules governing Rule 23 class actions.

In Tyson Foods, the district court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class action and FLSA collective action for claims alleging that Tyson Foods had not paid its employees for all time spent donning and doffing protective gear. Plaintiffs sought to prove injury and damages using statistical evidence that averaged donning and doffing time, even though employees used different equipment and it was undisputed that hundreds of employees were not entitled to any additional compensation. A jury found Tyson Foods liable, but awarded only about half of the damages that plaintiffs' statistical experts had calculated were due.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide two questions with potentially broad application to Rule 23(b)(3) class actions: (1) whether differences among individual class members may be ignored, and a class certified, when plaintiffs use statistical techniques that presume that all class members are identical; and (2) whether a class may be certified if it contains hundreds of members who were not injured and have no legal right to damages. At oral argument, however, it appeared that a number of the Justices—and perhaps a majority—may see the case as hinging on its specific employment-law context under the FLSA.

The United States argued in its amicus curiae brief (pdf) in support of the employees that representative adjudication was proper in Tyson Foods under the Court's precedent in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946). Mt. Clemens, the government argued, established a burden-shifting framework for deciding FLSA cases in which the employer had not kept precise records of the time each employee worked (as Tyson Foods agreed it had not). If a class plaintiff were to show, using a sampling of employees, that unpaid work had been performed, that approximation would be enough to establish a presumption of injury as to all employees, which the employer could rebut only by producing "accurate estimates" of time actually worked. Id. at 694.

Agreeing with the Solicitor General's contention, Justice Kagan suggested at oral argument that whether Tyson Foods "can proceed as a class [action is] really not the question in this case because of Mt. Clemens," which establishes "that certain kinds of statistical evidence are completely appropriate in FLSA cases." Accordingly, Justice Kagan said, "the question * * * before us is not a Rule 23 question, it's a question of whether this sort of evidence complies with the Mt. Clemens standard." Similarly, Justice Kennedy suggested that "if this were simply a class action under [Rule] 23," the problems identified by the questions presented "might be a barrier to certification, but under Mt. Clemens you have a special rule," which is "the substantive law for [the] FLSA." In response to Justice Kennedy pressing employees' counsel to concede "that there is a strong possibility you might not * * * have this class certified * * * under Rule 23, absent Mt. Clemens," counsel agreed that because of Mt. Clemens, "this is an easier case than a case in which there was not that substantive law difference." Asked for the same concession, counsel for the United States likewise agreed that under Rule 23 alone the case "would be much closer" and that the case the case "turns on the Mt. Clemens standard," not "on a freestanding Rule 23 requirement."

Counsel for Tyson Foods pushed back against suggestions that Mt. Clemens is controlling by pointing out that Tyson Foods involves separate FLSA and Rule 23(b)(3) classes, so that Rule 23 issues could not be avoided, and that Rule 23 does not permit certification where commonality and predominance depend on expert sampling that lumps together "wildly different activities." And Chief Justice Roberts observed that "it would be an extension of Mt. Clemens to apply it at the liability stage as opposed to the damages stage" (emphasis added).

The Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Alito appeared less convinced that the Mt. Clemens presumption controls and more willing to address the questions presented as they apply to Rule 23 class certification generally. These Justices each focused their questions on the fact that the jury could not have accepted plaintiffs' experts' opinions about the amount of time worked without pay, because the jury awarded only about half of the damages calculated using those statistical averages. Once the jury rejected this expert testimony, Justice Alito asked, "how can you separate the employees who were injured from the employees who were not injured" or "how much time the employees were entitled to" except in "a very slap-dash fashion?" Once the jury rejects plaintiffs' "average statistics, * * * there's no way to tell whether everybody who's going to get money was injured or not," the Chief Justice added. Even if some sort of allocation could be derived, Justice Scalia expressed skepticism that "you can get a class certified, some of whom have not been injured at all, and wait until the conclusion of the trial for the trial court to determine who has not been injured." Other Justices (including Justice Kennedy) suggested that Tyson Foods might have waived arguments based on these difficulties by not making a Daubert challenge to plaintiffs' statistical experts, by objecting to bifurcating the liability and damages phases of the trial, and by not seeking a special jury verdict.

As is often the case when the Justices appear to be closely divided, too much should not be read into oral argument, where the Justices are as likely to be probing each party's position as signaling their own views. In the event, however, that a majority does regard the special FLSA rule in Mt. Clemens as controlling even the Rule 23-certified state-law claim, and that the Mt. Clemens presumption was triggered by the expert evidence here, the Court could soon turn once again to the same questions presented. The Court has "held" a number of certiorari petitions without acting upon them while it decides Tyson Foods, as we blogged about previously. Among these pending petitions is Dow Chemical Company v. Industrial Polymers, Inc., 14-1091, an antitrust case in which Dow seeks review of a Tenth Circuit decision affirming a $1.1 billion judgment to a class of purchasers of polyurethane chemicals. Dow's petition cleanly presents important Rule 23 questions about expert approximations and disparate classes full of uninjured and differently injured claimants—questions that in Tyson Foods may have become muddied by the special approach that Mt. Clemens took in employment wage cases. There is no reason to think that Tyson Foods, whatever the outcome, will bring an end to the Court's interest in getting Rule 23 right.

Tags: Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., collective action, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Dow Chem. Co. v. Indus. Polymers Inc., employment, Fair Labor Standards Act, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Supreme Court, Trial by Formula, Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, wage and hour

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2015. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.