United States: Certification By Statistics: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Use Of Statistical Sampling In Tyson Foods Employment Class Action

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-2 decision affirming a $2.9 million judgment against Tyson Foods, Inc. in an employment overtime pay case where statistical sampling was used to establish classwide liability and predominance of common issues. Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo et al., Case No. 14-1146 (U.S. March 22, 2016). The Court was careful to note that the "case presents no occasion for adoption of broad and categorical rules governing the use of representative and statistical evidence in class actions." Rather, the Court upheld the use of statistical sampling based on facts and law that are specific to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and, in particular, to establishing the number of hours worked where there are no alternative means for doing so and the employees at issue are similarly situated.

While the Court did not expressly limit its reasoning to FLSA cases, it emphasized that "the fairness and utility of statistical methods in contexts other than those presented here will depend on the facts and circumstances particular to those cases." Though the case has been closely watched because it raises important issues concerning uninjured class members, the Court concluded that consideration of those issues would be premature on the record before it.

BACKGROUND

Tyson Foods is a processor and maker of chicken, beef, pork, and prepared foods. Plaintiffs are Tyson employees who work in a pork processing plant in Iowa. Tyson requires the employees to wear protective gear, but the exact composition of the gear depends on the task the worker performs on a given day. Tyson compensated some, but not all, employees for "donning and doffing" the protective gear, and did not record the time each employee spent on these activities. Plaintiffs filed suit, alleging that donning and doffing were integral and indispensable to their hazardous work and that Tyson's policy not to pay for those activities denied them overtime compensation required by the FLSA. The employees also raised a claim under an Iowa wage law. The employees sought certification of their state claims as a class action and certification of their FLSA claims as a collective action.

Since the employees' claims related only to overtime, each employee had to prove that, when added to their other time worked, the time spent donning and doffing protective gear caused their total hours to exceed 40 hours per week. Tyson argued that this required individual determinations that defeated predominance. Because Tyson did not keep records of the time spent donning and doffing, plaintiffs introduced expert evidence regarding the average time spent donning and doffing, which was 18 minutes and 21.25 minutes, and argued that it was a permissible inference that all employees donned and doffed for the average times. An earlier Supreme Court decision, Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 686-88 (1946), held that under the FLSA, where an employer failed to keep required time records, the employee could establish the amount and extent of his or her work through "just and reasonable inference." The district court relied on Mt. Clemens to permit the inference and certified both "collective action" claims under the FLSA and a Rule 23 state law class. The state law class consisted of 3,344 members; 444 employees opted into the FLSA collective action.

Plaintiffs sought to bifurcate the trial between liability and damages; Tyson opposed bifurcation and the case proceeded to trial on both liability and damages. Based on expert evidence, plaintiffs sought an aggregate award of approximately $6.7 million. Plaintiffs' expert admitted that several hundred class members were not injured. Tyson did not make a Daubert challenge to plaintiffs' expert evidence nor did it put on an opposing expert, instead arguing to the jury that differences in individual time spent donning and doffing made the case too speculative for classwide recovery. The jury awarded aggregate damages of $2.9 million. Tyson argued both in the trial court and on appeal that the jury's verdict made clear that the jury did not agree with plaintiffs' experts' conclusions and that because it was impossible to know the jury's reasoning, it could not be determined which employees had suffered injury or the amount of each employee's injury.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment and award against Tyson. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the district court's class certification ruling. As an initial matter, the Court noted that the parties did not dispute that the standard for certifying a collective action under the FLSA was no more stringent than for certification of a Rule 23 class, and that proof of an FLSA violation would also demonstrate a violation of the state statute. The opinion thus focused on Rule 23 requirements.

Use of Statistical or Representative Evidence. The Court declined to establish general rules governing the use of statistical evidence in class actions, noting that "whether and when" such evidence can be used to establish classwide liability will depend on the purpose for which the evidence is being used and the elements of the underlying claim. The Court noted that in many cases, a representative sample will be the only way to establish a defendant's liability, and that the evidence cannot be deemed improper merely because the case is brought as a class action. The Court then held that plaintiffs could use representative evidence to prove classwide liability where each individual class member could have relied on that evidence if he or she brought an individual action. Here, the Court concluded that under Mt. Clemens, an individual plaintiff could properly have relied on the statistical evidence, so it was proper for the class to do so.

The Court distinguished Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), on the ground that there, the employees were not similarly situated and no employee in an individual action could have relied on depositions detailing the ways in which other employees were discriminated against. Here, however, each employee worked in the same facility, did similar work, and was paid under the same policy.

The Court made clear that not all inferences drawn from representative evidence in an FLSA case are "just and reasonable" under Mt. Clemens. Evidence that is statistically inadequate or based on implausible assumptions could not lead to a fair or accurate estimate of the uncompensated hours an employee worked. But here, because Tyson did not make a Daubert challenge to the methodology, the statistical evidence was admissible and could serve as the basis for the inference. Importantly, the Court emphasized that the "fairness and utility of statistical methods in contexts other than those presented here will depend on facts and circumstances particular to those cases."

Uninjured Class Members. In its certiorari petition, Tyson had asserted a second issue: Whether a class that included uninjured members could be certified. In its merits brief, however, Tyson conceded that "the fact that federal courts lack authority to compensate persons who cannot prove injury does not mean that a class action (or collective action) can never be certified in the absence of proof that all class members were injured." The Court relied on that concession and declined to address the issue. Tyson instead argued in its merits brief that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a mechanism for ensuring that uninjured class members could not recover. Tyson argued that the jury's damages award meant that it necessarily rejected plaintiffs' experts' estimates, so it would not be possible to know which employees were entitled to share in the award. Plaintiffs, however, argued that there were possible methodologies for making that determination. The Court held that since the trial court had not yet addressed that question or disbursed the award, a ruling on the issue would be premature. The Court also emphasized that the problem was one of the defendant's "own making" because it opposed bifurcation; the defendant should not be permitted to benefit from "the difficulty it caused."

While the Court did not reach the issue of uninjured class members, the concurring and dissenting opinions of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Thomas make clear that they would not permit uninjured class members to recover. Thus, Chief Justice Roberts stated in his concurrence (joined in part by Justice Alito): "If there is no way to ensure that the jury's damages award goes only to injured class members, that award cannot stand. This issue should be considered by the district court in the first instance." And in his dissent, Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Alito) highlighted the concern that the decision could be used to lessen the predominance requirement because the district court did not give proper consideration to the variable donning and doffing times, and that a FLSA violation was impossible without evidence that each employee worked over 40 hours per week with donning and doffing time included.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE TYSON FOODS DECISION

The Supreme Court issued a narrowly reasoned, fact-specific 6-2 affirmance that leaves existing law largely intact. And the absence of Justice Scalia's vote does not appear to have been a factor given the 6-2 majority for affirmance. There are several key takeaways from the decision:

  • While the opinion permits the use of statistical averages to establish classwide liability in certain circumstances, it is highly dependent on the particular facts and law at issue. In Tyson Foods, the plaintiffs' expert's unchallenged representative study was permissible evidence to establish hours worked where there were no alternative means, the employees at issue were similarly situated, and an employee would have been permitted to rely on that evidence if he or she had brought an individual action. The opinion expressly reserves the issue of the "fairness and utility" of such evidence in other cases, including other FLSA cases.
  • Where such evidence is offered, it will typically be advisable for the defendant to make a Daubert challenge to the evidence and to challenge it with rebuttal expert evidence.
  • Defendants should carefully analyze the strategic implications of decisions like the one made in the trial court here to oppose bifurcation.
  • The Court recognized potential problems with inclusion and recovery by uninjured class members as important, but those issues will have to await a decision in another case.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions