United States: Supreme Court Affirms Class Certification And Judgment Predicated Upon "Representative Evidence"

On March 22, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a decision permitting class plaintiffs to rely on "representative" or "sample" evidence to satisfy the prerequisites to class certification and certain elements of their claims.  See Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146, 2016 WL 1092414 (Mar. 22, 2016).  This is one of the relatively few recent class action decisions by the Court that could be construed as something other than a victory for class defendants.  As Justice Thomas stated in dissent, the decision arguably is inconsistent with the Court's pro-defendant decisions in Wal-Mart and Comcast.  We have previously discussed the Supreme Court's recent class action jurisprudence, including the Wal-Mart and Comcast decisions. 

Upon close reading, however, Tyson Foods may not be the significant boon to the plaintiffs' class action bar that a cursory review could suggest, nor is it necessarily inconsistent with Wal-Mart and Comcast.  While its holding supports the use of representative evidence, the ability to use such evidence applies equally to defendants attempting to defeat class certification and liability.  The Court did nothing to circumscribe the most significant aspect of these decisions, which is that Rule 23 "does not set forth a mere pleading standard," but rather a party must "be prepared to prove that there are in fact . . . common questions of law or fact" as required by Rule 23(a) and a district court must undertake a "rigorous analysis" that plaintiff has met this burden.  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011).  Perhaps more than anything, the decision's repeated reference to the consequences of defendant's litigation decisions, including its failure to challenge one of plaintiffs' experts under Daubert or to offer a competing expert at trial, provides litigation strategy guidance for defendants in future class action cases. 

Tyson Foods arose out of a dispute between Tyson, a meat processing company, and certain employees at its Storm Lake, Iowa pork processing plant regarding whether the employees had been properly compensated for overtime work.  These employees worked in Tyson's "kill, cut and retrim" departments, where pigs are slaughtered, trimmed and prepared for distribution.  Because of the dangerous nature of the work, the employees in these departments are required to wear protective gear.  Tyson paid its employees under a so-called "gang-time" system, where employees were paid for the time spent at their stations.  Tyson also paid some, but not all, of its kill, cut and retrim employees an additional four to eight minutes per shift, to account for the time spent putting on and removing protective gear.  This metric—the four to eight minutes—was merely an estimate.  Tyson did not actually record the amount of time each employee spent putting on and removing the protective gear.

Employee-plaintiffs filed suit in the Northern District of Iowa, claiming that Tyson's practices violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), which requires that a "covered employee who works more than 40 hours a week receive compensation for excess time worked 'at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.'"  Id. (citing 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)).  The FLSA also requires covered employers to pay employees for activities "integral and indispensable" to their regular work, even if those activities do not occur at the employee's workstation.  See Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247, 254 (1956).  Additionally, the FLSA requires employers to keep "records of [its employees] and of the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment."  29 U.S.C. § 211(c).  According to plaintiffs, Tyson violated the FLSA because it should have but did not record, and compensate, them for the time in excess of 40 hours spent "donning and doffing" protective gear.  Plaintiffs also asserted claims under the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law, which provides for recovery under state law when an employer fails to pay "all wages due," including FLSA-mandated overtime.  Iowa Code § 91A.3 (2013).

Plaintiffs moved for class certification of their Iowa law claim (and certification of their federal claims as a "collective action" under the FLSA), and Tyson objected to certification of both classes on the same ground.  According to Tyson, because of the variance in (i) the protective gear that each employee wore and (ii) the time it took each employee to put on and remove their gear, plaintiffs' claims were not sufficiently similar to be resolved on a classwide basis.  In Rule 23 parlance, Tyson argued that plaintiffs could not satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)—that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members."  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). 

The district court rejected Tyson's position, concluding that there were common questions susceptible to classwide resolution, including "whether the donning and doffing of [protective gear] is considered work under the FLSA [and] whether such work is integral and [in]dispensable."  The class, consisting of 3,344 individuals, was certified and the case proceeded to trial, where the parties relied on "representative evidence."  Because Tyson did not keep records of time spent donning and doffing, plaintiffs introduced a study by their industrial relations expert, Dr. Kenneth Mericle, who "conducted 744 videotaped observations and analyzed how long various donning and doffing activities took.  Based on this investigation, Mericle calculated the average time it took Tyson employees to "don and doff": 18 minutes for employees in the cut and retrim departments, and more than 21 minutes for employees in the kill department.   Using these averages, another of plaintiffs' experts, Dr. Liesl Fox, estimated the amount of unpaid overtime worked by each employee by adding Mericle's estimated average donning and doffing time to the gang-time each employee worked and subtracting any time allocated to an employee for donning and doffing.  Based on this methodology, Fox concluded that 212 employees did not meet the 40-hour threshold to qualify for overtime, but that the remaining class members had been undercompensated in the amount of approximately $6.7 million.  The jury, however, awarded plaintiffs only $2.9 million in damages.

Tyson moved to set aside the jury verdict on the ground that class certification was improper.  The company focused on the "representative evidence" supplied by plaintiffs, arguing that it incorrectly assumed that each employee spent the same amount of time putting on and removing their protective gear.  According to Tyson, the true, individualized nature of the employees' donning and doffing times defeated predominance, whereas employees-plaintiffs countered that individual inquiries are unnecessary because it can be assumed that each employee donned and doffed for the same average time.  Tyson also argued that certification was barred by the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart, which reversed a lower court's grant of class certification given the need for "individualized determinations of each employee's eligibility for backpay."  Id. at 2560.>sup>1  

The district court denied Tyson's motion, and the Eighth Circuit and Supreme Court affirmed.  In a 6 to 2 decision written by Justice Kennedy,2 the Court refused to "categorically exclude" the use of representative evidence in class action cases, finding that evidence to establish classwide liability "will depend on the purpose for which the evidence is being introduced and on 'the elements of the underlying causes of action.'"  According to the Court:

"A categorical exclusion of that sort, however, would make little sense.  A representative or statistical sample, like all evidence, is a means to establish or defend against liability.  Its permissibility turns not on the form a proceeding takes – be it a class or individual action – but on the degree to which the evidence is reliable in proving or disproving the elements of the relevant cause of action. . . .  In a case where representative evidence is relevant in proving a plaintiff's individual claim, that evidence cannot be deemed improper merely because the claim is brought on behalf of a class.  To so hold would ignore the Rules Enabling Act's pellucid instruction that use of the class device cannot 'abridge . . . any substantive right.'"

The Court also observed that in many cases "a representative sample is 'the only practicable means to collect and present relevant data.'"  2016 WL 1092414 at *8.  Noting that Tyson kept no time records regarding its employees' use of the protective gear, the Court found that plaintiffs had no other way "to prove the precise extent of uncompensated work."  Id. at *9.  Rather, employees-plaintiffs "sought to introduce a representative sample to fill an evidentiary gap created by the employer's failure to keep adequate records."  Moreover, the Court found that Mericle's study did not "deprive [Tyson] of its ability to litigate individual defenses.  Since there were no alternative means for the employees to establish their hours worked, [Tyson's] primary defense was to show that Mericle's study was unrepresentative or inaccurate" – an issue more appropriate for summary judgment than class certification.

The Court also rejected Tyson's argument that Wal-Mart precluded certification.  In Wal-Mart, plaintiffs had not established that there was a common policy of discrimination affecting each employee in the class.  Rather, plaintiffs proposed to use a sample set of class members as to whom liability for sex discrimination and back pay would be determined in depositions supervised by a special master:  the "aggregate damages award was to be derived by taking the 'percentage of claims determined to be valid' from this sample and applying it to the rest of the class, and then multiplying the 'number of (presumptively) valid claims' by 'the average backpay award in the sample set.'"  Wal-Mart rejected what it called "Trial by Formula" as, among other things, violative of the Rules Enabling Act because it enlarged class members substantive rights.  Thus, the Wal-Mart plaintiffs' were not "similarly situated" and could not satisfy Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement—that class members have common questions of law or fact.  According to the majority, the situation in Tyson was different: "While the experiences of the employees in Wal–Mart bore little relationship to one another, in [Tyson Foods] each employee worked in the same facility, did similar work, and was paid under the same policy . . . [Thus,] the experiences of a subset of employees can be probative as to the experiences of all of them."  Id. at *11.3  Nor does Wal-Mart stand for the "broad proposition" that a "representative sample is an impermissible means of establishing classwide liability."  

The Court did not decide Tyson's second argument that plaintiffs had not identified a mechanism to ensure that uninjured class members do not recover damages, finding the inquiry "premature" and noting that Tyson could "raise a challenge to the proposed method of allocation when the case returns to the District Court for the disbursal of the award."  Id. at *12.  The Court added, however, that this problem "appears to be one of [Tyson's] own making" because plaintiffs had proposed bifurcating the proceedings for "the precise reason that it may be difficult to remove uninjured individuals from the class after an award is rendered.  It was [Tyson] who argued against that option and now seeks to profit from the difficulty it caused.  Whether, in light of the foregoing, any error should be deemed invited is a question for the District Court to address in the first instance."4 On that point, Chief Justice Roberts' concurrence noted that "Tyson's insistence on a lump-sum jury award cannot overcome the limitations placed on the federal courts by the Constitution," including that "Article III does not give federal courts the power to order relief to any uninjured plaintiff, class action or not."

Tyson Foods rejects the premise that class plaintiffs and defendants are prohibited from relying on representative evidence.  Perhaps as importantly, the case-specific inquiry laid out in the decision highlights a number of strategic litigation considerations:

  • Move to exclude "inadequate" representative evidence via a Daubert motion and/or on summary judgment.  As the Court observed, "[r]epresentative 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 has worked."  Tyson, however, failed to challenge Mericle's methodology under Daubert and/or on summary judgment, and so there was no basis to exclude the evidence on appeal.  Instead, once a court finds evidence admissible, "its persuasiveness" generally is "the near-exclusive province of the jury.  The District Court could have denied class certification on this ground only if it concluded that no reasonable juror could have believed the employees spent roughly equal time donning and doffing," and the district court here made no such determination.
  • Demonstrate that representative evidence is irrelevant or prejudicial.  Citing Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, the Court found that the permissibility of representative evidence turns "on the degree to which the evidence is reliable in proving or disproving the elements of the relevant cause of action."  But at trial Tyson did not introduce its own expert testimony to attempt to offer competing evidence or as a means to undermine plaintiffs' experts.  Plaintiffs' expert evidence therefore went largely unrebutted.  While there are conceivable reasons to adopt such an approach, serious consideration needs to be given to offering rebuttal testimony in these types of circumstances and a clear rationale accepted by counsel and the client if a decision is made not to do so. 
  • Move to bifurcate proceedings.  The plaintiffs had moved in the district court to bifurcate the proceedings, such that first a trial would be conducted on the questions whether time spent donning and doffing was compensable work under the FLSA and how long these activities took to perform on average.  Second, Fox's methodology would be used to determine which employees suffered an FLSA violation and how much each was entitled to recover.  Tyson, however, insisted on a single proceeding in which a jury determined liability and aggregate damages.  It remains to be seen which side will benefit from the use of a single proceeding, particularly in light of the majority's comments that Tyson "invited" error.  Nonetheless, bifurcation of trial into liability and damages phases is an issue that necessarily raises numerous strategic considerations, including at times offering defendant the possibility of excluding at the liability phase unfavorable evidence that is only relevant to damages.
  • Use special verdicts:  The jury returned a special verdict finding the time spent in donning and doffing protective gear at the beginning and end of the day was compensable work but that time during meal breaks was not.  No special verdict was returned on the question of damages or on whether the jury credited one or both of Mericle's average times.  The absence of a special verdict on this latter issue gave rise to Chief Justice Roberts' concern about the district court's ability to distribute the award, an outcome that obviously could benefit Tyson.  Consideration needs to be given to whether and under what circumstances special verdicts are likely to aid one side or the other in the event a jury verdict leaves certain questions unanswered.


1. Wal-Mart concerned alleged discriminatory employment practices in violation of Title VII.  The company opposed class certification on the ground that plaintiffs could not show commonality under Rule 23(a)—"that 'there are questions of law or fact common to the class.'"  Id. at 2550-51. In particular, Wal-Mart argued that plaintiffs could not demonstrate that there was a single, countrywide discriminatory policy.  The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Scalia, agreed with Wal-Mart, finding that plaintiffs "provide[d] no convincing proof of a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy," and thus had "not established the existence of any common question" under Rule 23(a).  Id. at 2556-57.

2. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurring opinion, while Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justice Alito joined.

3. In dissent, Justice Thomas observed that Wal-Mart requires that a district court conduct a "rigorous analysis" to determine that Rule 23's prerequisites have been met before certifying a class.  According to Justice Thomas, the district court did not rigorously analyze plaintiffs' use of representative evidence to ensure that it was "sufficiently probative of the individual issue to make it susceptible to classwide proof."  Id. at *16.  Rather, Justice Thomas stated, "Mericle's evidence showed that employees' donning and doffing times varied materially," thus confirming the "inappropriateness of class treatment."

4.  Chief Justice Roberts' concurring opinion focused on this second issue, and he expressed concern that "the District Court may not be able to fashion a method for awarding damages only to those class members who suffered an actual injury."  At least part of the problem, according to the Chief Justice, is that "it is undisputed that hundreds of class members suffered no injury in this case;" the jury "returned a lump sum verdict of $2.9 million on a classwide basis without specifying any particular amount of donning and doffing time used to calculate that number;" and "we know the jury" did not accept plaintiffs' proposed average times because, if it had, it would have arrived at a different damages figure.  As a result, "we know that the jury must have found at least one of Dr. Mericle's two averages to be too high," but "we do not know how much donning and doffing time the jury found to have occurred in each department."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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.

Events from this Firm
26 Sep 2018, Seminar, Tokyo, Japan

Orrick’s Global Japan Practice is hosting a series of “Orrick Library” seminars to explore legal issues in various fields in Japan as well as the United States, Asia and Europe

26 Sep 2018, Conference, New York, United States

Employment Partner, Mandy Perry and Chair of Orrick's Global Employment Law Practice, Mike Delikat will be participating in the Global Business Protections 2018: International Restrictive Covenants and Confidential Information Conference.

10 Oct 2018, Conference, Florida, United States
Julie Totten is Program Chair of this year’s conference, Lynne Hermle is speaking on women in the courtroom, boardroom, and c-suite, and Erin Connell is speaking on pay equity and pay transparency.

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
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
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.


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.


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