Helmert v. Butterball, LLC
805 F. Supp. 2d 655
| E.D. Ark. | 2011Background
- Helmert v. Butterball and Garner v. Butterball in ED Arkansas; cross motions for partial summary judgment regarding FLSA donning/doffing of protective gear.
- Donning/doffing smocks at Butterball’s Ozark and Huntsville plants are in dispute as potentially compensable.
- Smocks are single-layer white garments worn daily; employees must obtain cleaned smocks and renew them; used smocks are deposited at shift end.
- Butterball’s Good Manufacturing Practices require clean smocks and relate to food safety; training emphasizes contamination prevention.
- Regulatory framework defines workday and principal activities; Portal-to-Portal Act excludes certain activities but not core donning/doffing; court must assess if time is compensable within a continuous workday.
- Court grants plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment on donning/doffing being integral and indispensable; rejects mere “plug time” compensation and notes issues of damages remain to be determined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are donning and doffing smocks integral to principal activities? | Helmert argues yes; essential to principal duties. | Butterball contends they are not primarily for employer benefit. | Yes; they are integral and indispensable to the principal activities. |
| Is the six-minute plug-time payment sufficient to satisfy FLSA/Arkansas MWA? | Should pay for actual time spent; plug time undervalues work. | Plug time is reasonable time for donning/doffing. | No; court declines to adopt plug-time as law; requires actual hours worked. |
| Does continuous workday doctrine render all time between first and last principal activity compensable? | Waiting/idle time during continuous workday should be compensable. | Management can control start/end times to limit compensable time. | Theory recognized; actual damages depend on hours worked and compensation rules. |
| Can damages be based on reasonable estimates rather than actual time? | Evidence may support reasonable-time back pay when records are missing. | Actual hours should be recorded and paid where possible. | Damages may use reasonable estimates where records are missing, but employees still must be compensated for actual hours; unresolved on total damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 546 U.S. 21 (2005) (defines work as integral and indispensable activities; supports compensation of donning/doffing)
- Mount Clemens Pottery Co. v. Brown, 328 U.S. 680 (1946) (established continuous workday concept and compensation for time on employer’s premises)
- Reich v. IBP, Inc., 38 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 1994) (injunction requiring recording/compensation for compensable pre/post-shift activities)
- Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 750 F.2d 47 (8th Cir. 1984) (integral and indispensable standard source for principal activity concept)
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (1956) (illustrates preliminary/postliminary vs. principal activity distinctions)
- Mitchell v. King Packing Co., 350 U.S. 260 (1956) (early cases on wearable protective gear as integral to work)