If you’ve been scammed out of your wages from your boss, then you might 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, which is why the law demands that they be paid 1.5 times their normal rate of compensation for overtime. If you’re still not receiving the right payment, you’re still able to bring an action.

Employee Misclassification

In Wal-Mart v. Dukes plaintiffs sought an approval for a rule 23(b)(2) category of Wal-Mart’s female employees 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 is not the only factor since plaintiffs have filed suits promptly. 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 injunctive reliefas well as declaration relief, punitive damage and backpay. They claimed gender discrimination in promotions and wages. The lawsuit claimed that Wal-Mart discriminated against women throughout the nation by forcing managers to decide on their own promotion and salary. They claimed these policies resulted in lower salaries and more time to promotions for female employees.

In the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Dukes case did not constitute a class case, even though an overwhelming majority denied the case’s status as an action for class. The court, however, did not remand this case since the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that 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 was not a class-action.

In Dukes, the plaintiffs requested group certification within 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 does not impact the settlement for class action in any other cases involving Wal-Mart. In the end, the ruling will impact how the business is managed. Although the court’s decision won’t 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, plaintiffs can request a second appeals on the Sixth Circuit’s decision. They can also choose to pursue an application for certification of class. In that instance the court of district may decide the matter based on the principles of stare decisis or co-operation. While there are cases supporting the tolling of the time limit however, the plaintiff’s case might not have been properly depicted in the earlier case.

This decision highlights the importance of having a clearly defined process for class certification. Although Wal-Mart was not able to issue a certification to the former Wal-Mart employees The Ninth Circuit sitting en banc determined to protect their rights to seek financial relief under Rule 23(b)(3). The Ninth Circuit’s decision makes clear that districts courts are able to issue certificates to additional classes, if needed.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart is a call to revisit an issue concerning the conditions in Title VII’s location. Wal-Mart asserts that class members must fulfill the requirements of Title VII, in contrast to the previous line of cases that said that absent class members weren’t relevant. The Court pointed out the decision of the Supreme Court in Dukes will prevent a recurrence of this question in the future.

In the contest, Tyson Foods pointed out that it was not in a position to determine what exactly was the amount of time or benefits for its employees, and said that this was not an appropriate assumption. The company stated that it was not able to be held accountable for the amount of time it takes to dress and remove each employee’s clothes. In any event the ruling raises the unanswered question of whether Tyson be relying on statistics to back up its assertions?

The appeal is about the amount of time Tyson employees wear and removing their protective gear while working. Plaintiffs argued that this was an integral element of their job and that they deserved to be compensated. Tyson was unable to compensate the plaintiffs for this period. In the end, the district court declared the class action 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 to cover the wearing and doffing of the protective equipment. This case has important implications for the future of the company in the near future.

Tyson Foods’ appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court aimed to overturn its $5.8 million overtime award made in an class action wage and hour suit, contending that plaintiffs were not permitted to use 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 throughout the U.S.

The validity of Tyson’s appeal is contingent on whether the plaintiffs’ arguments stand up to scrutiny. Presently it appears that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has upheld the lower court’s decision, however an appeal before the Supreme Court could be resolved in any manner. When the appeals are settled, Tyson must address the procedure used to award the award.

Over 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 was in favor of Wal-Mart Stores, a host of business associations, a few conservative legal advocacy groups and the law professors. The workers supported Tyson Foods’ case.

Although Tyson Foods Tyson Foods case did set the right standard for evaluating the admissibility of evidence from statistical sources but this decision by the U.S. Supreme Court failed to offer guidance for trial judges on the proper handling of the use of statistical evidence. Its 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 may spark debates about the appropriate use of statistical evidence in wage and hours lawsuits. The decision could limit the decision to situations where the plaintiff’s group is making use of Mt. Clemens statistical evidence. The plaintiff’s class action bar could be tempted to interpret the decision as a reverse of Wal-Mart’s ban on wage and hour-based class action.