Skip to footer

Supreme Court ruling against Tyson clears path for worker class-action suits

The decision dealt a blow to business interests hoping the court would use the case to further crack down on class-action claims brought by employees.

|
Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP/File
The Supreme Court building in Washington, June 30, 2014. The Supreme Court has ruled for more than 3,000 workers at a Tyson Foods Inc. pork-processing plant in Iowa in a pay dispute with the company. The justices voted 6-2 on Tuesday, to reject new limits Tyson asked them to impose on the ability of workers to band together to challenge pay and workplace issues.

The US Supreme Court dealt a blow to big business and a victory to workers' rights advocates on Tuesday when it upheld a lower court's ruling against Tyson Food Inc. in favor of more than 3,000 workers who sued the company for not properly compensating them for hours worked.

The workers had filed a class-action suit alleging they weren't paid for the time they spent putting on and taking off protective equipment needed before they could start working.

In its appeal, Tyson contested the use of statistical evidence to determine liability and damages. Citing the 2011 Supreme Court decision that threw out the massive sex-discrimination case against Wal-Mart Stores Inc, Tyson and its backers pressured the court, to curtail the use of statistical evidence.

In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected Tyson’s argument, writing that “a categorical exclusion of that sort...would make little sense.” His opinion pointed to a 70-year-old Supreme Court decision that allows workers to use statistical evidence to sue employers who record inaccurate hours, resulting in employees receiving inadequate compensation.

Critics of the use of statistical evidence, mostly business groups, have long pushed for class-action suits to be assessed individually contending that the practice violates defendants' due process rights, Reuters reported.

The court’s 6-2 ruling, is yet another blow to business interests hoping the court would use the case to further crack down on class-action claims brought by employees. As Reuters reported, of the three cases class-action cases that have reached the court, it has now ruled in two, with businesses losing both times. In January, the court ruled 6-3 against advertising firm Campbell-Ewald, on a lawsuit accusing the company violating a federal consumer law by sending unsolicited text messages on behalf of the US Navy.

This isn’t the first time that Tyson has faced such a lawsuit. In 2010, the company settled a similar, decade-long dispute with the US Department of Labor, by agreeing to pay workers at poultry plants for time they spent putting on and taking off protective clothing.

This report contains material from the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Supreme Court ruling against Tyson clears path for worker class-action suits
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0322/Supreme-Court-ruling-against-Tyson-clears-path-for-worker-class-action-suits
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe