Peg Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
765 F.3d 791
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Bouaphakeo et al. sue Tyson Foods at Storm Lake, IA for unpaid FLSA wages and IWPCL damages.
- Plaintiffs challenge Tyson’s gang-time pay system for donning, doffing, and walking; PPE varies by role and department.
- Tyson paid K-code time pre-2007 and partial K-code time 2007–2010, but did not individually time-track all activities.
- District court certified a FLSA collective action and an IWPCL Rule 23 class; trial used timesheets plus a 744-employee time study.
- Evidence showed average donning/doffing/walking times; jury awarded damages including liquidated damages, which Tyson appealed.
- Ruling: district court’s certifications affirmed; jury verdict upheld in a nine-day trial; Tyson’s challenges to commonality and damages were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Certifications proper under Rule 23 and §216(b)? | Bouaphakeo contends common questions predominate given a common policy. | Tyson argues individualized issues predominate due to PPE variation and department differences. | Certifications affirmed; common policy applied to class-wide damages with permissible inferences. |
| Commonality and predominance despite PPE/donning variations? | Plaintiffs show a common policy (K-code) and time-study data to infer damages. | Variations in duties and gear undermine a single common injury. | Court held common issues predominate; variations do not overwhelm common questions. |
| Use of time-study/damages formula constitutes trial by formula? | Use of average times applied to individuals to prove damages; representative evidence allowed. | Dukes prohibits trial by formula. | Not improper; damages proven via representative evidence applied to individuals. |
| Sufficiency of damages proof for classwide damages? | Evidence supports a reasonable inference of classwide liability and damages. | Some class members may have zero or de minimis damages; evidence uncertain. | Sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference of classwide damages; jury’s verdict sustained. |
| Did jury instructions invite error by treating some fully compensated members as non-damages? | No reversible error; instruction mirrored defense position. | Instruction misstates membership and damages. | No reversible error; invited error doctrine not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requires a common question that drives the class-wide resolution)
- Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. v. Anderson, 149 F.2d 461 (6th Cir. 1945) (permissible inference to prove damages when records are unavailable)
- Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. v. Mt. Clemens, 328 U.S. 686 (U.S. 1946) (testimony from employees can establish liability and infer damages)
- Alvarez v. Lopez, 546 U.S. 514 (U.S. 2005) (continuous workday rule and compensability of walking time)
- Lopez v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 690 F.3d 869 (8th Cir. 2012) (FLSA overtime burden to prove uncompensated work; similar factual backdrop)
- Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Thiessen, 267 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2001) (Rule 23 predominance considerations in class action)