767 F.3d 754
8th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs are current and former "gang-time" employees at Tyson’s Columbus Junction, IA meat-processing plant who sued under the FLSA and Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law for unpaid time donning, doffing, and walking with PPE and clothing.
- Tyson paid a daily fixed "K-code" amount (varied over time) rather than recording actual don/doff/walking minutes; plaintiffs sought classwide recovery.
- The district court certified the FLSA claim collectively and the IWPCL claim as a Rule 23 class, granted summary judgment that time during a 35‑minute meal period is noncompensable, and submitted other issues to a jury.
- The jury found the disputed pre/post-shift donning/doffing/walking to be "work" but not "integral and indispensable," found no damages, and found Tyson acted in good faith.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing (inter alia) the court should give preclusive effect to prior decisions (Alvarez and Reich), should decide "integral and indispensable" as a matter of law, erred excluding a DOL brief, and erred as to the meal-period summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preclusive effect of Alvarez/Reich | Alvarez and Reich already resolved compensability of donning/doffing (including unique items); Tyson is estopped | Plant-specific facts differ; class includes knife and non-knife users so collateral estoppel is improper | No preclusion; plaintiffs failed to show classwide common proof required for preclusion or certification |
| Who decides "integral and indispensable" | Court should decide as a matter of law to ensure uniform rule | Factual disputes about duties and equipment make it a jury question | Plaintiffs waived objection; sufficient evidence supported jury verdict; no reversible error |
| Damages (classwide) | Knife-users entitled to damages; jury erred in finding no damages | Plaintiffs’ model failed to distinguish knife vs non-knife users and was unreliable | Affirmed: insufficient classwide proof of damages; expert admitted flaws |
| Meal-period donning/doffing | Don/doff during meal predominantly benefits employer and is compensable | Meal period must be evaluated as a whole; largely for employees’ benefit | Summary judgment affirmed: donning/doffing during uninterrupted 35‑minute meal period not compensable |
Key Cases Cited
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (Sup. Ct.) (defines "integral and indispensable" and continuous workday rule)
- Reich v. IBP, Inc., 38 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir.) (distinguishes compensable donning/doffing of unique vs non‑unique gear)
- Lopez v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 690 F.3d 869 (8th Cir.) (addresses burden to prove uncompensated donning/doffing time and meal‑period standard)
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (Sup. Ct.) (integral and indispensable test for compensability)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (Sup. Ct.) (plaintiff’s burden to prove uncompensated work and permissible inference for damages)
- Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods, Inc., 591 F.3d 209 (4th Cir.) (mealtime donning/doffing analysis; noncompensable where part of bona fide meal period)