Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Labor

Court Certifies Chicken Processor Employees' Collective
Action for Unpaid Overtime Wages

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In In re Pilgrim's Pride Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation, No. 1:07-CV-1832, 2008 WL 4877239 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 13, 2008), the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division, granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify a collective action for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs alleged that Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (Defendant) refused to compensate them for time spent taking off and cleaning the sanitary gear they wore in Defendant's chicken-processing plant.

Background

Plaintiffs, workers employed at Defendant's chicken-processing plant, alleged that their employer refused to provide compensation for the time they spent dressing and undressing in safety and sanitary gear, and for the time they spent cleaning the gear. Id. at *1. Plaintiffs moved for certification of a collective action for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA and to authorize notice to potential collective action members. Id.

Arguments

Plaintiffs moved the court to conditionally certify their class under the two-stage collective action approach pursuant to the FLSA. Id. at *3. Plaintiffs argued that they satisfied their burden to demonstrate that they were similarly situated with potential class members. Id. Over 3,000 workers from twenty of Defendant's facilities filed opt-in consents with the court, and thirty-seven declarations from workers at eighteen facilities indicated that they experienced the same treatment by Defendant as the named Plaintiffs received. Id.

Defendant did not oppose the two-state approach; however, Defendant asserted that the case could not be effectively managed as a collective action because there were significant differences between the facilities and workers at one plant compared to those at another. Id. at *4. Defendant also asserted that there were significant differences in the union status of the employees as well as those in time-keeping methods at the various facilities. Id. It argued that the differences posed significant obstacles to an orderly collective action. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

During the first state of the certification process, also called the notice stage, the court determines whether the named plaintiffs have demonstrated, through their pleadings and affidavits, that they are similarly situated to the potential collective action members. Id. at *3. This determination requires only a modest factual showing. Id. In the instant case, the court found that Plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to show they were similarly situated to the other potential collective action members. Id. at *4.

The court also approved Plaintiffs' proposed notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. Id. The court certified the collective action and planned to issue a separate order authorizing notice. Id.

The case was decided on March 13, 2008.