If you’ve been defrauded of your wages through your company, you could be entitled to an amount of compensation as per the Fair Labor Standards Act. The laws establish the minimum wage as well as overtime compensation. Non-exempt employees are not able to be paid off-the-clock without pay, and the law demands that they be paid 1.5 times their normal rate of compensation for overtime. If you’re not getting your due payment, you’re still able to pursue an action.
In the case of Wal-Mart v. Dukes plaintiffs sought an approval as a Rule 23(b)(2) group of female Wal-Mart employees who are currently employed. They also sought declaratory and injunctive remedies against Wal-Mart in the Region 43. Wal-Mart claims that Andrews prohibits class action claims. Dukes isn’t the sole deciding factor as plaintiffs filed their lawsuits in a timely fashion. The issue is whether Dukes bars class action lawsuits in accordance with the doctrine of the APA.
The Supreme Court recently decided to deny a class action lawsuit brought filed by Wal-Mart employees who are female. The plaintiffs sought relief from injunction, the declaration of relief and punitive damages and backpay, alleging gender discrimination in promotions and wages. The suit claimed that Wal-Mart discriminated against women across the country by requiring managers to make their own decisions about the promotion process and compensation. Plaintiffs claimed the practices resulted in lower salaries and more time to promotions for female employees.
It was the Supreme Court ruled that the Dukes case did not constitute a class action, despite the fact that an overwhelming majority dismissed the case as an action for class. But, the court did not remand this case since the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they were in agreement with the decisions of the defendants. The court also pointed out the fact that Dukes is not really a case of class and was instead a single suit brought by one plaintiff, which means it wasn’t a class action.
In Dukes, the plaintiffs requested classification in the Northern District of California. It was the Ninth Circuit affirmed the nationwide certification of the class however, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. The decision in Dukes won’t affect the settlement for class action in other Wal-Mart cases. In the end, the ruling will influence how the company operates. Although the decision of the court will impact the matter however, it could also influence other lawsuits that women have filed against Wal-Mart.
In the event that Ninth Circuit affirmed the Sixth Circuit’s decision by a majority, plaintiffs could request a second appeals on the Sixth Circuit’s decision. They can also choose to file an application for certification of class. In this case the district court could decide the matter based on the principles of stare decisis or co-operation. Although there are a few cases that support tolling the limitation period but the plaintiff’s argument might not have been properly presented in the previous case.
This decision highlights the necessity of having a clear process for class certification. While Wal-Mart didn’t certifiably certify an ex-walmart employees The Ninth Circuit sitting en banc made a decision to keep their rights to seek financial relief under Rule 23(b)(3). The Ninth Circuit’s ruling also makes clear that districts courts are able to issue certificates to additional classes, if needed.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart will allow reopening the issue of the conditions in Title VII’s location. Wal-Mart claims that class members must meet these conditions, contrary to the previous line of cases that said that absent class members weren’t relevant. The Court pointed out it was the supreme court’s ruling in Dukes will prevent a recurrence of this matter in the near future.
In the Appeal, Tyson Foods pointed out that it wasn’t capable of determining how much overtime and other benefits for its employees, and said that this was not an acceptable assumption. The company, however, stated that it was not able to be held accountable for the amount of time it takes to dress and dress each employee. However the decision leaves an unanswered question: can Tyson count on statistical proof to back up its assertions?
The appeal is about the amount of time Tyson employees wear and removing their protective gear while working. The plaintiffs claimed that this was a crucial aspect of their work and that they deserved to be compensated. Tyson was unable to compensate the plaintiffs for this period. The court ultimately approved the class action as a collective action in accordance with the FLSA and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs claimed that Tyson did not pay overtime for wearing and doffing of the protective equipment. This case has important implications for the company’s growth in the near future.
Tyson Foods’ appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court aimed to overturn its $5.8 million overtime settlement in an class action wage and hour lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs were not allowed to make use of statistics to establish damages and that the trial court had used flawed methods to calculate damages. The use of statistical evidence in calculating damages would have undermined the protection of rights of workers within the U.S.
The validity of Tyson’s appeal depends on whether plaintiffs’ arguments are able to stand up to scrutiny. Presently there is a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has upheld the lower court’s ruling, however appeals before the Supreme Court could be resolved in any way. When the appeals are settled, Tyson must address the procedure used to award the award.
Over the past two years in the past two years, in the past two years, U.S. Supreme Court has been able to decide whether to take on this case on behalf of Tyson Foods and its workers. Tyson Foods filed amicus briefs in both cases. On one hand it supported Wal-Mart Stores, a host of business associations, a few traditional legal advocacy organizations, and an association of law professors. The workers supported Tyson Foods’ case.
Although it is true that the Tyson Foods case did set an appropriate rule to evaluate the admissibility of evidence from statistical sources but it was the U.S. Supreme Court failed to offer guidance for trial judges on the proper handling of the evidence of statistics. This Tyson Foods decision exemplifies how the lower courts have diverged from the proper procedures in wage and hour cases. Tyson Foods should appeal the decision.
The Tyson decision is likely to spark debates about the appropriate use of statistical evidence in wage and hours lawsuits. The decision could restrict the ruling to situations where plaintiff’s classes are employing Mt. Clemens statistical evidence. The plaintiff’s class action bar could attempt to interpret the decision as a change in Wal-Mart’s ban on wage or hour-based class action.