DONATE

Be part of the solution.

Help AARP Foundation win back opportunity for struggling Americans 50 and over.

Charity Rating

AARP Foundation earns high rating for accountability from a leading charity evaluator. Read

Connect with the
Foundation

Email:

foundation@aarp.org


AARP Foundation Litigation:

202-434-2060


Toll-free Nationwide:

888-OUR-AARP

(888-687-2277)

 

Toll-free TTY:

877-434-7598

 

AARP Foundation Tax ID

52-0794300

Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo

Supreme Court Allows Class Action to Proceed Based on “Representative” Proof

    

AARP helped persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to approve a $2.9M damages award for unpaid wages by a class of food processing workers based on testimony about a “representative” sample of the workers.  The Court reaffirmed that this approach is permissible in appropriate circumstances – for instance, where, as here, an employer failed to keep accurate records of time worked by individual employees, so “representative” proof was the best evidence employees had available.

Background

Peg Bouaphakeo and co-workers in the “kill, cut and retrim departments” of Tyson’s Storm Lake, Iowa pork processing plant sued the company in 2007. They charged Tyson with failing to pay them for time spent “donning and doffing” protective gear needed to safely perform their duties (i.e., to avoid injury due to knife cuts) and, thus, failure to abide by the overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law (IWPCL).  Between 1998 and 2007, Tyson’s paid all workers like Bouaphakeo for time spent putting on and taking off their protective gear, but in 2007 eliminated such pay for many of them.  Both before and after 2007, Tyson’s failed to keep track of such time.

A federal court approved Bouaphakeo’s proposals to prosecute a “collective action” on behalf of herself and several hundred “similarly situated” co-workers under the FLSA and a “class action” on behalf of herself and several thousand co-workers under the IWPCL.  In a collective action, in order to be part of the case, each individual plaintiff must “opt in” to the lawsuit; in a class action, all persons affected by the challenged misconduct are automatically members of the class unless they specifically “opt out” to bring a case on their own.  In some respects, the rules applicable to collective action are different from those for class actions; in this instance, the Supreme Court reached a resolution applicable to both kinds of cases.

The Bouaphakeo case went to trial, and Tyson’s workers confronted a serious challenge to prove their case.  Without any recorded data regarding time spent “donning and doffing” protective gear, Tyson’s employees had no way to show how much unpaid working time they had each been denied and thus, the extent of the damages they should receive, without presenting testimony from every single worker affected.   Instead, they presented testimony by an expert witness who observed the donning and doffing activities of 744 workers allegedly constituting a “representative sample” of all affected workers.  Extrapolating from the experience of the workers in the sample, the expert determined the amount of time spent donning and doffing protective gear by all the members of the class and the unpaid wages this would represent.  This produced a total amount of $2.9 million.


Search Legal Advocacy

Find
Legal Cases

Find cases in which AFL has advocated in courts nationwide for the rights of older persons, and filed AARP’s amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs that help courts decide precedent-setting cases. The cases within the drop-down categories below are in alphabetical order for ease of searching.

Strengthening Law and Policy through
Legal Advocacy

Our legal advocacy initiatives  - conducted by AARP Foundation Litigation (AFL) - reflect more than 15 years of work in federal and state courts across the country. Through our efforts, we support the Foundation’s four impact areas: Tackling Senior Hunger, Paving the Way to Stable Income, assuring the adequacy and availability of Safe and Afffordable Housing and Reconnecting People to Families and Communities, and ensure that those 50 and older have a voice in the laws and policies that affect their daily lives.