Dimas Lopez v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
690 F.3d 869
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Employees represent a class of Tyson Foods hourly production workers at the Lexington, Nebraska plant, suing for FLSA overtime and NWPCA wage violations.
- Tyson measures ‘gang time’ at the production line and disputes compensation for donning and doffing PPE and clothing, including unique vs non-unique items.
- Tyson’s pay includes K-code time and pre-/post-shift walking, with changes over time (pre-2007, 2007–2010, March 2010 onward).
- The district court certified a FLSA collective action and a NWPCA Rule 23 class; trial occurred after partial summary judgment rulings.
- After a nine-day trial the jury ruled for Tyson; employees appealed on preserved legal/ jury-instruction issues.
- The court affirms, addressing preservation rules, jury instructions on work, meals, K-code, and related due process arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of time-claim standard | Employees urged actual time should govern donning/doffing for non-unique items. | District court properly allowed reasonable time; prior rulings did not require actual time. | Issue not preserved; plain error not shown. |
| Submitting ‘work’ to the jury | Whether ‘work’ is a question of law or fact should have been decided by the court. | Plaintiffs invited error by requesting a jury-on-work instruction. | Invited error; no plain-error review. |
| Meal-period compensability standard | Henson standard (predominantly for employer’s benefit) should apply; continuous-workday implications. | Henson governs meal-period tests; Alvarez does not alter meal-period analysis. | District court did not abuse; Henson standard adopted. |
| Limiting instruction under Rule 407 | Limiting instruction was improper and should have admitted evidence for other purposes. | Limiting instruction timely and proper under Rule 105; Rule 407 applicability uncertain but not plain error. | No reversible plain error; limitations permissible. |
| Due process re post-summary-judgment development | District court amended pre-trial rulings without notice after evidence ended, blindsiding plaintiffs. | Instruction consistent with prior ruling; no due-process violation. | Due process challenge unavailing; instruction consistent with earlier ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 546 U.S. 21 (U.S. 2005) (defines continuous workday scope under FLSA after Portal-to-Portal Act)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 686 (S. Ct. 1946) (burden on employee to prove unpaid work; framework for compensable time)
- Reich v. IBP, Inc., 38 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 1994) (non-unique donning/doffing not compensable under Reich framework (pre-Alvarez context))
- Henson v. Pulaski County Sheriff Dept., 6 F.3d 531 (8th Cir. 1993) (meal-period standard—predominantly-for-employer-benefit test)
- Parkus v. Delo, 135 F.3d 1232 (8th Cir. 1998) (preservation of objections; specificity required for review)