Wage and Hour Law Blog : Minimum Wage and Overtime Violations Lawyer & Attorney : Yezbak Law Offices : Off the Clock Work, Workplace Discrimination & Harassment

On July 19th, a settlement between Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. and a number of employees from its Schuyler, Neb., beef processing plant was approved by Judge Richard G. Kopf of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.  The plant employees claimed in their complaint that Cargill had violated overtime and minimum wage requirements set by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act (“NWHA”), and the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act (“NWPCA”).  Specifically, the employees claimed that they were not paid for required activities performed before shifts, after shifts, and during meal breaks, such as: obtaining tools, equipment and supplies necessary for the performance of their jobs; donning, doffing, and sanitizing various equipment and protective gear; sharpening knives or using “steels” or “mousetraps;” sanitizing knives; and walking between work sites before the first work activity and after the last work activity of the day.  The performance of these activities led to the plant employees working substantial amounts of time “off-the-clock” and without pay.  According to the settlement agreement, the plant employees required to wear the most amount of protective equipment will receive $6.00 per week for a specific period of time already worked, while other employees will receive $4.00 per week. The approved settlement will help to compensate these employees for their previously uncompensated work time.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

        The Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision today that has provided workers with added protection from employers retaliating against employees who complain about violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  The FLSA is the federal statute that establishes employment rules and regulations (i.e. minimum wage, overtime pay, etc.). The statute also has an anti-retaliation provision that prohibits an employer from terminating or discriminating against an employee that has “filed any complaint” alleging violations of the FLSA, testified or is going to testify, or served on an industry committee. In the suit of Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Kasten alleged that Saint-Gobain violated this FLSA provision by terminating him for verbally complaining to company officials about not being compensated for time spent donning and doffing mandatory protective gear and walking to work areas between the timeclocks and the changing rooms. Before being granted certiorari by the Supreme Court, the Western District Court of Wisconsin first ruled that Saint-Gobain had violated the FLSA by failing to compensate its employees for time spent donning and doffing protective gear, but ruled unfavorably as to Kasten’s retaliation claim. The District Court concluded that only written complaints were covered under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit also agreed with the District Court’s interpretation of the FLSA. However, upon review of the suit, the Supreme Court clarified that the FLSA anti-retaliation provision encompassed both written and oral complaints. The Supreme Court explained that, among other things, limiting the definition of “filing a complaint” to only written complaints completely undermines the purpose of the anti-retaliation provision, which is to forbid “labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers,” 29 U.S.C. §202(a).

        This decision is a huge win for all FLSA covered employees and is another step in the right direction toward ensuring a better and more equal workplace.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota allowed workers who install and maintain DirecTV satellite systems to proceed as a class.  The lawsuit for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act was brought by Carlton Edwards and others against Multiband Corporation, one of DirecTV’s largest full-service home service providers (HSP’s). Multiband is responsible for 20% of the installation and maintenance of DirecTV’s satellite equipment for single-family homes throughout the nation, operating in 16 states. It claimed that the workers were really employees or independent contractors of other companies with whom Multiband subcontracted.  The court found that Multiband directly controlled the work done by the technicians, including requiring them to start a job at a certain time, clock-in with a Multiband dispatcher, perform the job within a certain time frame, pass inspections by Multiband for the work done, and attend Multiband classes to stay current with Multiband policies and procedures.  Other DirecTV HSP’s have been sued for similar pay practices.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Judge Hayden Head of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted class status to a group of current and former employees of Sam Kane Beef Processors Inc. Judge Head ordered that notice should be sent to all hourly wage earners involved in production, processing, packing and cleaning activities during the three years prior to August 10, 2007. The workers who filed the lawsuit claim that they spend up to 2 hours a day engaging in unpaid work activities, including dressing and undressing, waiting in security lines and sanitizing equipment. Sam Kane Beef Processors argues that all of its employees were already paid for the disputed time.

The Supreme Court, in IBP v Alvarez, determined that meat processing workers must be paid for time spent donning and doffing protective or safety gear and equipment. In Alvarez, the Supreme Court also decided that under the continuous workday rule employees must be paid for all walking and waiting time occurring after donning but before doffing the required gear and equipment. 

Workers in meat processing and poultry plants have sued employers throughout the country. Tyson Foods in particular has faced many lawsuits regarding its alleged illegal pay practices. In 2007 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decided that Tyson must pay its poultry workers for donning and doffing their safety gear. Pay practices at Tyson’s Goodlettsville, TN meat processing facility have been challenged in a lawsuit joined by over 600 workers. That case is scheduled for trial in August 2008.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that pre-trial proceedings in 18 wage and hour lawsuits against Tyson Foods Inc. be consolidated. Tyson workers in Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas filed lawsuits for unpaid overtime wages. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Tyson-owned IBP, Inc. violated the FLSA by failing to pay workers in South Dakota for the time they spent donning and doffing required sanitary and protective gear and equipment, as well as associated waiting and walking time. 

In September 2007, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals determined that donning and doffing required gear and equipment by Tyson workers constituted work as a matter of law. Still, Tyson chooses to not pay many workers for time spent changing into or out of protective clothing, waiting in lines to retrieve the clothing or perform production work, or walking from the locker rooms to their work stations.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports that: “Robert Camp of The Cochran Firm in Birmingham, Ala., who represents more than 1,000 clients in a suit against Tyson, said it could work to the plaintiffs' advantage also to all be heard in one court.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks