Weissman v. Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc.
838 N.W.2d 502
Wis. Ct. App.2013Background
- Six hourly Tyson employees at a Jefferson, WI meat-processing plant sued as a class under Wis. Stat. ch. 109, claiming unpaid time for donning and doffing required sanitary/protective gear and for walking after donning/before doffing.
- Tyson requires employees to don items at the plant each shift (hair/beard nets, frocks, vinyl gloves/sleeves, bump caps, safety glasses, ear plugs, captive shoes/boots); some items are color-coded and intended to prevent food contamination.
- Employees were not paid for at least some donning/doffing time and some on-premises walking time; plaintiffs sought compensation under Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 272.12.
- DWD rule defines compensable "principal activities" to include preparatory/concluding activities that are an "integral part" of a principal activity and gives three examples, including a chemical-plant example where on-premises changing is compensable if necessary to perform work.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to Tyson, adopting a federal-court test (items must be "unique and extensive" or required by extreme hazard) and concluded donning/doffing was noncompensable; the employees appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether donning/doffing required by employer on premises is a compensable "integral part" of a principal activity under Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 272.12(2)(e) | Donning/doffing is a preparatory/concluding activity that is "closely related" and "indispensable" to principal activities (protects food safety and workplace safety) and thus compensable | Donning/doffing is not "integral/indispensable" because items are not "unique and extensive" and donning is only incidentally related or for employee convenience; federal cases require a tighter nexus | Reversed: under the plain language of the DWD rule, donning/doffing at Tyson is closely related, required on premises, and indispensable to performance, so it is compensable (remanded); court did not decide de minimis or walking-time issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (1956) (changing/clothing and showering can be integral and indispensable under FLSA facts)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) (workweek includes time employee is necessarily required to be on employer premises; discussed de minimis rule)
- Pirant v. United States Postal Service, 542 F.3d 202 (7th Cir. 2008) (donning/doffing noncompensable where clothing could be worn to/from work and not shown to be required on premises)
- Perez v. Mountaire Farms, Inc., 650 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2011) (donning/doffing compensable when necessary to principal work and primarily benefits employer)
- Gorman v. Consol. Edison Corp., 488 F.3d 586 (2d Cir. 2007) (donning/doffing not integral where work environment not lethal and gear not required for entry)
- Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corp., 370 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2004) (donning/doffing plant uniforms integral/indispensable when required by employer and primarily benefits employer)
- Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 860 (W.D. Wis. 2007) (criticized narrow, lethality-focused test; supportive logic for compensability in plant settings)