805 F.Supp.2d 655
E.D. Ark.2011Background
- Two related EEOC cases, Helmert v. Butterball and Garner v. Butterball, involve Butterball’s donning and doffing of smocks at Ozark and Huntsville plants.
- Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment arguing donning and doffing are integral and indispensable to production employees’ principal activities under the FLSA.
- Butterball moves for partial summary judgment to adopt a plug-time (six-minute) payment for donning and doffing and argue records may reflect actual time or reasonable estimates.
- Court relies on FLSA standards defining work and workweek, the Portal-to-Portal Act exceptions, and continuous workday doctrine to analyze compensability.
- Stipulated facts show smocks are single-layered, required to be obtained daily, and removed only at shift end; primary purpose is food safety.
- Court concludes donning and doffing smocks at these plants are integral and indispensable to principal activities and not excluded by the Portal-to-Portal Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are donning and doffing smocks integral to principal activities? | Helmert/Bar b rely on primary employer benefit and plant safety requirements. | Smocks mainly benefit employees and are not indispensable to principal activities. | Yes; donning/doffing smocks are integral and indispensable to principal activities. |
| Does the six-minute plug-time payment satisfy the FLSA recordkeeping requirement? | Actual time must be recorded and paid; plug time is insufficient. | Reasonable average time can be used as compensation for donning/doffing. | No; plug time is not lawfully sufficient where actual hours must be recorded. |
| Does continuous workday doctrine require compensation for all time between first and last principal activities? | All time in the continuous workday is compensable unless excluded. | Idle time and pre/post activities may be uncompensated if not part of principal activities. | Time within the continuous workday is compensable for actual hours worked, subject to exclusions. |
| Can Butterball avoid liability by relying on reasonable-time estimates for back pay? | Employer must pay for actual hours; estimates only after failure to record; not a substitute. | Evidence from Reich and similar cases supports reasonable estimates when records are lacking. | Damages may be based on reasonable estimates where records are missing, but actual hours are required where feasible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 546 U.S. 21 (U.S. 2005) (establishes work-hours concept with Portal-to-Portal Act context)
- Anderson v. Mount Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (defines statutory workweek as time required to be on premises)
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1956) (integral and indispensable test for pre/postliminary activities)
- Mitchell v. King Packing Co., 350 U.S. 260 (U.S. 1956) (recognizes principal activities and related time as compensable)
- Reich v. IBP, Inc., 38 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 1994) (injunctions and recordkeeping on compensable pre/post-shift work)
- Gorman v. Consol. Edison Co., 488 F.3d 586 (2d Cir. 2007) (court recognizes continuous workday considerations in compensable time)