History
  • No items yet
midpage
Dekeyser v. Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc.
314 F.R.D. 449
E.D. Wis.
2016
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiffs are current and former nonexempt, hourly production workers at Waupaca Foundry who seek pay for time spent donning/doffing work clothes and showering at employer-provided facilities.
  • The Seventh Circuit reversed this Court’s earlier summary judgment for Waupaca, holding a factual dispute exists whether changing/showering is “required by the nature of the work.” DeKeyser v. Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc. returned the case for further proceedings.
  • Plaintiffs moved to certify a Rule 23 class for Wisconsin-foundry workers (approx. 4,104 members). The Court previously conditionally certified an FLSA collective (482 opt-ins) covering six foundries.
  • Waupaca moved to decertify the FLSA collective; Plaintiffs do not oppose removing Indiana and Tennessee opt-ins from the Wisconsin Rule 23 class.
  • The Court assessed Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and Rule 23(b)(2)/(b)(3) predominance/superiority, considering common proof (written hazard materials and Plaintiffs’ industrial hygienist opinion) about whether on-site changing/showering is necessary to reduce health risks.
  • The Court certified the Wisconsin Rule 23 class, partially decertified the FLSA collective by creating three district-based subclasses, and ordered transfer of non-Wisconsin opt-ins to their home districts after amended complaints.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Rule 23(a) requirements are met for a Wisconsin class Named reps and common evidence (plant materials, expert) establish commonality, typicality, adequacy, numerosity Variations in jobs, exposure, health histories and pay methods defeat commonality and typicality Rule 23(a) satisfied: numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy met
Whether certification is proper under Rule 23(b)(2) given claims for back pay Back pay is equitable/incidental to injunctive relief so (b)(2) can apply Compensatory damages create individualized issues making (b)(2) inappropriate (b)(2) certification permissible here because damages are back-pay style equitable relief
Whether common issues predominate under Rule 23(b)(3) despite individualized exposure/damage questions Central liability question (whether changing/showering is required/necessary) can be resolved with common evidence; damages math is manageable Individualized proof of exposure, health, commute, and pay requires individualized adjudication, defeating predominance (b)(3) satisfied: common liability question predominates; individual damages calculations do not defeat certification
Whether the FLSA collective should be decertified and/or split by district Plaintiffs agree non-Wisconsin opt-ins should be severed/ transferred rather than litigated here Waupaca sought decertification of the collective entirely; opposed severance earlier Court granted-in-part: FLSA collective partially decertified into three district-based subclasses; Wisconsin FLSA subclass retained; Indiana and Tennessee opt-ins to be transferred after amended complaints

Key Cases Cited

  • Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2010) (Rule 23 certification standards)
  • Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (commonality inquiry requires common answers)
  • DeKeyser v. Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc., 735 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2013) (reversing summary judgment; factual dispute about whether donning/doffing is required)
  • Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA LLC, 705 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2013) (discussion of similarity between FLSA collective and Rule 23 class standards)
  • Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015) (individual damages calculations do not alone defeat class certification)
  • Jefferson v. Ingersoll Int'l Inc., 195 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 1999) (limits on (b)(2) certification when significant individual damages claims exist)
  • Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (U.S. 2016) (importance of common questions in wage-and-hour class litigation)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Dekeyser v. Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc.
Court Name: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Date Published: Mar 31, 2016
Citation: 314 F.R.D. 449
Docket Number: Case No. 08-C-0488
Court Abbreviation: E.D. Wis.