Perez v. Mountaire Farms, Inc.
650 F.3d 350
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Perez and similarly situated employees sued Mountaire under the FLSA for time spent donning and doffing protective gear at Millsboro and Selbyville poultry plants.
- District court held the donning and doffing at the beginning and end of shifts, and mid-shift during a meal break, were compensable as work under the FLSA; Mountaire policy changes to allow take-home smocks did not defeat compensation.
- Evidence focused on time to don/doff, including Radwin’s real-time measurements (17 minutes after adjustments) and Davis’s walking-inclusive time (10.2 minutes); district court ultimately used Radwin's figures.
- Court applied Steiner’s 'integral and indispensable' test via Alvarez/Alvarez-inspired framework to determine if donning/doffing were integral to Mountaire’s principal activities (poultry processing).
- Court held mid-shift donning/doffing at the meal break not compensable and calculated total compensable time at 10.204 minutes for beginning/end-of-day donning/doffing after excluding meal-break time.
- On cross-issues, court found Mountaire’s violations not willful (2-year statute of limitations) and denied liquidated damages, based on good-faith reliance on counsel/advice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are start/end donning and doffing compensable as work? | Perez contends these acts are integral to processing and thus compensable. | Mountaire argues these are pre/post activities not required by law/policy and not integral. | Yes; donning/doffing at start/end are compensable as integral and indispensable. |
| Are mid-shift donning and doffing during a meal break compensable? | Employees seek compensation for pre/post-meal donning/doffing. | Activities during a bona fide meal period are not compensable. | No; mid-shift donning/doffing during meal breaks are non-compensable as part of a bona fide meal period. |
| How should compensable time be calculated for donning/doffing? | District court erred by not adopting Radwin’s real-time times. | Court should adopt a defensible method consistent with industry practices. | Court properly used Radwin’s mean times; total beginning/end time = 10.204 minutes after excluding meal-break time. |
| Is the donning/doffing time de minimis? | Time is not de minimis given regular, significant annual amounts and safety/production relevance. | Time is de minimis per de minimis doctrine and Green’s fleeting rule. | Not de minimis; de minimis factors (Lindow) applied, but aggregate daily time is substantial enough to warrant compensation. |
| Is Mountaire's FLSA violation willful and what statute of limitations applies; should liquidated damages be awarded? | Violations were willful; potentially three-year limitations and liquidated damages. | Violations were not willful; two-year limitations; liquidated damages may be denied if good faith. | Violations not willful; two-year statute of limitations; liquidated damages denied due to good faith. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 546 U.S. 21 (U.S. 2005) (definitively defines 'integral and indispensable' in context of Steiner/Portal Act)
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1956) (integral and indispensable test for pre/postliminary activities)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (de minimis rule; broad framework for compensable time and aggregate approach)
- Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods, Inc., 591 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2009) (mealtime donning/doffing non-compensable; circuit precedent controlling issue)
- Roy v. County of Lexington, 141 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 1998) (predominant-benefit analysis for meal-period considerations; factual/quantitative posture)
- Tum v. Barber Foods, Inc., 360 F.3d 274 (1st Cir. 2004) (juries may define donning/doffing scope; supports inclusion of gear acquisition/delivery)
- Gorman v. Consolidated Edison Co., 488 F.3d 586 (2d Cir. 2007) (donning/doffing in context of principal activity; different circuit approach)