Lyons v. Conagra Foods Packaged Foods LLC, 899 F.3d 567

Background

ConAgra employees at its Russellville, AR plant must don and doff employer‑provided protective equipment outside production areas and are not paid because time clocks are inside production areas.
In 2012 bargaining, the union proposed a 10‑minute paid dress out period; parties dispute whether ConAgra agreed to move time clocks to changing areas in exchange for withdrawing that proposal. The 2012 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) contains no express paid time for donning/doffing and does not relocate time clocks.
ConAgra continued pre‑2012 practice of not paying most employees for donning/doffing; no grievance was filed under the 2012 CBA about this practice.
Employees sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), and also sought pay for time checking out/in tools. The district court granted summary judgment for ConAgra; employees appealed.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed: (1) donning/doffing unpaid time falls within §203(o) "custom or practice" exception under the FLSA given the longstanding CBA practice, (2) under Arkansas law the 2016 Gerber decision would not control after Act 914, and (3) tool checkout/check‑in time was de minimis.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether unpaid donning/doffing time is excluded from "hours worked" under FLSA §203(o)	The employer cannot unilaterally create a custom/practice to avoid pay; employees should be paid.	A longstanding pre‑2012 practice of nonpayment continued under the 2012 CBA, so §203(o) exclusion applies.	Held for ConAgra: prior long‑standing practice and lack of objection mean §203(o) exclusion applies.
Whether Arkansas law (AMWA) requires pay despite a CBA custom	Gerber requires pay regardless of CBA custom; district court erred to follow Act 914.	Act 914 clarifies that collective bargaining can establish wages/conditions; Gerber is effectively superseded.	Held for ConAgra: court predicts Arkansas Supreme Court would follow Act 914 and apply the parties’ CBA terms.
Whether Act 914 applies retroactively	Act limits conduct to on/after effective date; plaintiffs say statute should not displace Gerber for prior conduct.	The limiting language applies to a different section; codification shows Act 914’s clarification governs the relevant provision.	Held for ConAgra: Act 914 is properly applied as codified and does not require prospective‑only treatment here.
Whether time to check out/in tools is compensable (not de minimis)	Checkout/checkin takes 2–5 minutes and could be tracked; therefore it is compensable.	The short duration and administrative burden of precise tracking make it de minimis under FLSA.	Held for ConAgra: tool checkout/checkin is de minimis and not compensable.

Key Cases Cited

Davidson & Schaaff, Inc. v. Liberty Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 69 F.3d 868 (8th Cir.) (summary judgment standard)
Macheca Transp. Co. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., 737 F.3d 1188 (8th Cir. 2013) (de novo review of state‑law interpretation)
Jackson v. Old EPT, LLC, 834 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2016) (union acceptance and conduct can evidence agreement)
Gerber Prods. Co. v. Hewitt, 492 S.W.3d 856 (Ark. 2016) (Arkansas Supreme Court held donning/doffing payable despite CBA custom)
Guaranty Trust Co. of N.Y. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945) (state law declarations govern federal courts sitting in diversity)
Ashley Cty., Ark. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2009) (method for predicting state supreme court holdings)
J‑McDaniel Constr. Co., Inc. v. Mid‑Continent Cas. Co., 761 F.3d 916 (8th Cir. 2014) (limits on applying new statutes retroactively)
Kellar v. Summit Seating Inc., 664 F.3d 169 (7th Cir. 2011) (de minimis doctrine overview)
Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir. 1984) (factors for de minimis compensable time)
Singh v. City of New York, 524 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 2008) (de minimis doctrine application)