When can statistical evidence be introduced to prove injury in a class-action proceeding? In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, the U.S. Supreme Court offered modest guidance on the issue, holding that statistical evidence sometimes may be used to prove class-wide liability—at least where the class members are similarly situated. Though the court declined to adopt a bright-line rule prohibiting such evidence, its opinion leaves open significant questions about exactly when class-action plaintiffs can rely on this sort of evidence and when class certification in such a case is warranted. These questions are likely to be a major focus of litigation moving forward.
In Tyson, a group of employees alleged that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate them for overtime worked. (They also alleged an independent state-law violation but the court considered the claims together.) The employees worked in a pork plant’s kill, cut, and retrim departments. For safety and sanitation, each employee must wear certain protective gear on the job (varying by department and task). Tyson, the employees contended, failed to compensate its employees for the time it took to put on and take off this gear—which would push their hours over the threshold for overtime under the law.
