When can statistical evidence be introduced to prove injury in a class-action proceeding? In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, the U.S. Supreme Court offered modest guidance on the issue, holding that statistical evidence sometimes may be used to prove class-wide liability—at least where the class members are similarly situated. Though the court declined to adopt a bright-line rule prohibiting such evidence, its opinion leaves open significant questions about exactly when class-action plaintiffs can rely on this sort of evidence and when class certification in such a case is warranted. These questions are likely to be a major focus of litigation moving forward.
In Tyson, a group of employees alleged that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate them for overtime worked. (They also alleged an independent state-law violation but the court considered the claims together.) The employees worked in a pork plant’s kill, cut, and retrim departments. For safety and sanitation, each employee must wear certain protective gear on the job (varying by department and task). Tyson, the employees contended, failed to compensate its employees for the time it took to put on and take off this gear—which would push their hours over the threshold for overtime under the law.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
