Abadeer v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

Decision Date03 October 2013
Docket NumberNo. 3:09–cv–00125.,3:09–cv–00125.
PartiesHanaa B. ABADEER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TYSON FOODS, INC., et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Charles P. Yezbak, III, Yezbak Law Offices, Nashville, TN, Molly A. Elkin, Sara L. Faulman, Gregory K. McGillivary, Diana J. Nobile, Theodore Reid Coploff, Woodley & McGillivary, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Evangeline G. Paschal, Michael J. Mueller, Emily Burkhardt Vicente, Robert T. Dumbacher, Ryan A. Glasgow, Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, DC, Kenneth A. Weber, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Nashville, TN, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

KEVIN H. SHARP, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are cross-motions for partial summary judgment, (Docket Nos. 206 & 210), on Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act and state-law claims, which have been fully briefed by the parties, (Docket Nos. 206–1, 210–1, 222, 226, 233, 235). Also before the Court is Defendants' motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim under § 50–2–101(b) of the Tennessee Wage Regulation Act, (Docket No. 254), which is fully briefed as well, (Docket Nos. 255, 256, 259). For the reasons stated, the cross-motions for partial summary judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the motion for reconsideration will be GRANTED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are current and former hourly production employees (collectively “employees” or “workers”) at a beef- and pork-processing plant in Goodlettsville, Tennessee that Defendants Tyson Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (collectively Tyson) began to operate when Tyson acquired IBP, Inc., the plant's original owner, in September 2001. (Docket No. 37 at 2; Docket No. 222–1 at 1; Docket No. 226–1 at 1). The employees work in a variety of positions, including Trimmer, Styler, Trainer, Inspector, Pump Operator, Machine Operator, and Bag Opener. (Docket No. 37 at 2). Upon hiring, Tyson told the employees they would be paid an hourly wage for all of the hours they worked. (Docket No. 226–1 at 3).

Goodlettsville employees are required to clock in at the beginning of their shifts using a time clock located on the production floor and to clock out using the same time clock at the end of their shifts. ( Id. at 9–10). Tyson uses the clock-in time for attendance purposes only, not to determine the hours an employee worked on a given shift. ( Id.) Instead, Tyson measures compensable work time using an “Alternative Time and Attendance System,” (Docket No. 222–1 at 1), which pays an employee based on a preset “Pay Start Time” that corresponds to his position on the production line,1 (Docket No. 226–1 at 3–7). While an employee is not paid in the main for work he does after clocking in but before his Pay Start Time, clock-in times are used to “flag” him if he clocks in after his Pay Start Time and may be used in that situation to dock his pay.2 ( Id. at 9–10). A worker is paid until he clocks out at the end of his shift. ( Id. at 8).

Tyson requires each employee to be at his work station and ready for the line to start moving by his Pay Start Time, or else be subject to discipline. ( Id. at 8–9). “Ready” means dressed in sanitary and protective clothing and equipment necessary for the employee's position. ( Id.). Before January 2009, when Tyson changed its frock distribution policy, an employee had to do the following tasks after getting to the plant but before his Pay Start Time:

• retrieve and don a sanitary frock from an assigned locker on the second floor of the plant;

• retrieve and don a hair net, beard net (if needed), hard hat, and hearing protection from an assigned locker 3;

• retrieve from an assigned locker position-specific equipment, which might include a combination of safety glasses, gloves, a plastic arm sleeve, a forearm guard, a mesh glove, a belly guard, a rubber apron, a scabbard, steel, a hook, a hook holder, and a ruler;

• carry the retrieved equipment from the locker down two flights of stairs to the production hallway;

• wash his hands in a sink in the production hallway;

• walk through a sanitizing foot bath onto the production floor;

• sanitize all non-fabric items in a sanitation tank (if such items were retrieved);

• don all sanitized non-fabric items (again, only if such items were retrieved);

• collect and don one or two pairs of gloves;

• prepare for the beginning of production duties to the extent necessary, which may include bringing labels to the work station; wiping down his work station; setting up step stools; and collecting knives from the knife cart; and • arrive at his work station by Pay Start Time.

( Id. at 22, 50–56). The parties agree that Tyson does not compensate employees for the period of time that passes from when they don their frocks to their scheduled Pay Start Time.4 ( Id. at 18–19). They dispute, however, the amount of time these activities took before January 2009. The employees say they took 12–15 minutes; Tyson counters that it was fewer than seven minutes. ( Id. at 56–57).

At the end of each shift, after the last piece of meat passes their work stations, employees may leave the production line and clock out using the time clock on the production floor. ( Id. at 57–58). Prior to January 2009, employees had to remove and wash some of their equipment in sinks on the production floor, which some did before clocking out and others did afterwards. ( Id. at 58–60). (Tyson had no written policy directing employees to wash their equipment before clocking out. ( Id. at 59–60).) Then, after clocking out, employees had to sanitize their washed, non-fabric equipment in a dip tank and take it upstairs to the locker room. ( Id. at 61–62). Tyson's policies prohibit employees from taking off their frocks, hard hats, beard nets, and hearing protection on the production floor, so employees doffed these items either on the way to or in the locker room—but always after clocking out. ( Id. at 61). Once in the locker room, employees would exchange their dirty frocks for clean ones at a window at the far end of the room. ( Id. at 63). They could leave the plant only after putting clean frocks and equipment in lockers, as Tyson required frocks to be stored in the plant between shifts and prohibited unsanitized equipment in lockers. ( Id. at 62, 64–66). The parties agree that Tyson did not pay the employees for the activities they performed after clocking out on the production floor. ( Id. at 59–62, 64, 66). But, just as with the pre-shift activities, they disagree about how much time these post-shift activities took before January 2009. The employees insist it was 12–15 minutes; Tyson says it could have been no more than five minutes. ( Id. at 66–67).

In January 2009, Tyson changed the frock-distribution policy in Goodlettsville that affected both pre-shift and post-shift activities. ( Id. at 22). The new policy effectively eliminated the employees' need to don frocks and collect gear in the locker room, carry the gear downstairs, and sanitize the gear before putting it on. Instead, employees could get their frocks before their Pay Start Time from a bin located in the production hallway outside the production floor. ( Id.). After donning the frock, hair net, beard net (if needed), hard hat, and ear plugs, and washing their hands in the production hallway, employees would walk through the sanitizing foot bath onto the production floor, where they would collect and don the additional equipment required for their positions (without having to sanitize it). ( Id. at 68–69). Other tasks employees had to do to prepare for the beginning of production duties were unchanged. ( Id. at 70–71). The employees concede that the new frock-distribution policy shaved some time off their pre-shift activities, estimating these activities took 9–10 minutes to perform after January 2009. ( Id. at 71).

The greater impact of the January 2009 changes was on post-shift activities. Since January 2009, Tyson has required Goodlettsville employees to return dirty frocks at the end of the shift to a bin on the production floor.5 ( Id. at 22). Because this occurs at the same time they clock out, the employees do not allege that they have performed uncompensated post-shift work since January 2009. (Docket No. 206–1 at 10 n. 6).

With regard to meal periods, Tyson's Alternative Time and Attendance System automatically docks 30 minutes of time for an unpaid meal period if an employee works more than six-and-one-half hours. (Docket No. 226–1 at 73). Because employees are not allowed to leave meat on the conveyor belt when they go on their meal break, and because it can take up to five minutes for a piece of meat to go from the front of the production line to the end of it, the employees leave for their meal breaks in a staggered fashion, depending on their place in the line. ( Id. at 73–74).

The parties dispute when the meal period begins and ends. The employees say that although the 30–minute meal break technically starts at a set time every day, they continue working after the meal period begins because they cannot leave their workstation until the last piece of meat passes by. ( Id. at 73). Tyson responds that the employees do not regularly perform production work during the meal break because the 30–minute period begins at a different time for each employee, commencing when an employee leaves the line. ( Id.). (Curiously, Tyson has no documents that establish that each employee's meal period starts when that person leaves the production line and ends 30 minutes after that time. ( Id. at 87).)

Despite the disagreement as to whether employees do production work during the meal period, the parties agree on several points. First point of agreement: after employees leave the production line—and thus during their 30–minute meal period—they must doff their frocks and most other required equipment, wash the non-fabric...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Walsh v. E. Penn Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • August 17, 2021
    ...standard because it more faithfully adheres to precedent and the statutory purposes of the FLSA. See, e.g., Abadeer v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , 975 F. Supp. 2d 890, 904 (M.D. Tenn. 2013) (holding that Tyson's reasonable time standard is wrong "[a]s a legal matter" and that neither the DOL regula......
  • Bacon v. Eaton Aeroquip, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • October 9, 2014
    ...Thomas v. Doan Const. Co., No. 13-11853, 2014 WL 1405222, at *14 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 11, 2014) (citing Abadeer v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 2d 890, 907 (M.D. Tenn. 2013) (citations omitted)). This Court has stated distinctly that "[a] willful violation requires that the employer acted re......
  • Hajiani v. Esha United States, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • November 7, 2017
    ...to make on summary judgment. See Herman v. Palo Grp. Foster Home, Inc., 183 F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 1999); Abadeer v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 2d 890, 907 (M.D. Tenn. 2013). Here, plaintiff alleges that his employment with defendants began on October 10, 2011, and ended on January 10......
  • Shoots v. Iqor Holdings U.S. Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • October 19, 2015
    ...that plaintiffs' off-the-clock work was part of "hours worked" as compensable work under the FLSA); Abadeer v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 2d 890, 914 (M. D. Tenn. 2013) (finding that donning and doffing activities were compensable under the FLSA and constituted "hours worked"). Again, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT