Last week, in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo et al., No. 14-1146, the United States Supreme Court ruled that class and collective action plaintiffs can establish liability through statistical or "representative" evidence, as opposed to individualized assessments of employees. In the Tyson Foods case, the Court allowed the plaintiff-employees to use a statistical expert who conducted representative time studies to determine the average number of minutes that the employees spent on pre-shift and post-shift activities. A jury returned a verdict of $2.9 million in favor of the plaintiffs for unpaid wages, and that verdict was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Several experts have already opined that the Supreme Court's approval of this type of statistical evidence could make class action and collective action litigation more attractive to plaintiffs' attorneys. For a full analysis by our own Betsy Dorminey (ekd@wimlaw.com) please click on the following link: http://www.fed-soc.org/blog/detail/tyson-foods-v-bouaphakeo-supreme-court-addresses-wage-hour-collective-actions-and-statistical-proof.
Is an Employer Required to Classify Employees as Exempt?
Can Hostile Environment Plaintiffs Bolster Their Case by Evidence of Hostile Environment Against Other Minorities?
What to Make of EEOC Rescission of Its Harassment Guidance
Asking Team Members What Slows You Down or Makes It Harder to Do Your Job
Is an Oral Settlement of an Employment Dispute Binding?
