Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
766 F. Supp. 2d 1167
| D. Kan. | 2011Background
- Tyson operates Finney County and Emporia beef facilities with ~2500 hourly workers (Finney) and ~800–2000 previously at Emporia; production workers must wear protective clothing and gear.
- Workers are paid primarily by line time; there is a separate 'K code' time to compensate some donning/doffing, which does not reflect actual time.
- Reich v. IBP set initial compensability of donning/doffing for knife-wielding employees and Reich injunction required time-recording; later decisions varied.
- Alvarez clarified that any activity that is integral and indispensable to a principal activity is compensable under the FLSA; Portal-to-Portal Act defines exceptions for pre/post activities and exceptions for walking.
- Plaintiffs seek compensation for (1) actual time for pre-shift donning, post-shift doffing, donning/doffing at meals, and walking, and (2) unpaid rest-break portions; case is litigated as FLSA collective and KWPA class action.
- Court denied summary judgment on most issues but granted Tyson summary judgment on the quantum meruit claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are pre-shift donning and post-shift doffing integral and indispensable? | Garcia argues these activities start/end the continuous workday and are not de minimis. | Tyson argues the issue is inappropriate for summary judgment; facts are disputed. | Genuine issues of fact; summary judgment denied. |
| Do pre-shift/post-shift walking times count as part of the continuous workday? | Garcia asserts walking is compensable as part of continuous workday. | Tyson contends walking time is not compensable unless integral/indispensable and established by record. | Not decided in plaintiff's favor; summary judgment denied. |
| Should Tyson be permitted to rely on a de minimis defense for donning/doffing time? | Time spent on compensable tasks is not de minimis; thus counts toward hours worked. | Time may be de minimis; court should allow defense and weigh three de minimis factors. | Court will not preclude de minimis defense at this stage; issues remain factual. |
| Are meal-period donning/doffing activities compensable under 29 C.F.R. § 785.19? | Some or all donning/doffing during unpaid meal period may be compensable if not predominantly for employee benefit. | Time during meal period is predominantly for employee benefit if duties are largely personal; otherwise compensable. | Cross-motions denied; factual issues remain about time and predominant employer benefit. |
| Are rest breaks compensable as per 29 C.F.R. § 785.18, and is Tyson liable for KWPA/quantum meruit? | Rest breaks are 20 minutes and compensable; KWPA may recover wages due; quantum meruit may apply. | Rest breaks may be noncompensable; KWPA damages depend on FLSA; quantum meruit should be dismissed where remedies exist. | Rest-break and KWPA issues unresolved at summary judgment; quantum meruit claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reich v. IBP, Inc., 38 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 1994) (donning/doffing compensability; Reich injunction context)
- Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 546 U.S. 21 (U.S. 2005) (integral and indispensable activities are compensable)
- Lamon v. City of Shawnee, 972 F.2d 1145 (10th Cir. 1992) (meal-period 'predominant benefit' standard; de minimis factors later cited)
- Mitchell v. Greinetz, 235 F.2d 621 (10th Cir. 1956) (rest periods compensability factors; flexible duration test)
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1956) (integral and indispensable concept linked to principal activities)