Meat + Poultry - January 2004 - 70

meal period. According to the controlling Washington agency, however,
if employees do not receive their full 30 minutes for the meal period, the
meal period must be paid.
The employees at IBP claimed that because they were required to use
part of their meal period to remove safety equipment and clothing (and
then put it back on before production restarted), they were not receiving
their full 30-minute break. The court agreed with the employees.
As a consequence, because the meal period was interrupted and

shortened by the necessity of donning and doffing protective clothing and equipment, the court found that the entire meal period must
be paid. From a damages perspective, this meant that IBP was liable
for 30 minutes of pay for each employee, for each day of work, for as
many as three years prior to the lawsuit. To make matters worse, the
court allowed liquidated (or double) damages, illustrating just how
costly these types of lawsuits can be.
Avoiding the pitfalls
The fallout of this case will soon be felt
across the country. Many states have laws similar to that in Washington, which limit the circumstances under which a 30-minute unpaid meal
period can be provided. For example, California, Oregon, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wisconsin all have similar laws. There is no doubt
unions attempting to organize employees in
other states, as well as plaintiffs' lawyers looking for a big payday, will seize upon this case as
a tool to sue other employers.
To avoid being the next victim of a multi-million-dollar judgment, there are a number of
practical steps that can be taken.
* Conduct a thorough audit of your facility's
wage and hour practices to ensure
compliance with federal and state laws.
* Be wary of pay practices that
compensate employees from the start
of production instead of "punching in" or
other documented methods.
* Ensure that any clothes-changing
allowances or similar types of
additions to employee pay are sufficient to
withstand challenge and are
all-encompassing to include meal
periods, break times, etc.
No doubt, meatpackers will continue to be a
target for wage and hour lawsuits in 2004. The
industry is one of the most heavily regulated
the country and it is probable that the activities
of employees prior to beginning work will only
expand in the future. As a consequence, employers must be on guard and cognizant of new
litigation trends as they arise.
M&P
The author is a partner in the Houston law
firm of Alaniz and Schraeder L.L.P. Legal
topics provide general information and not
specific advice. Individual circumstances
may limit or modify this information.

For more information, see ad index on Page 85

MEAT&POULTRY

www.MEATPOULTRY.com

We would like to hear from you-
your comments and questions
about this article are welcome.
E-mail the author at:
meat&poultry@sosland.com
JANUARY 2004

http://www.MEATPOULTRY.com

Meat + Poultry - January 2004

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Meat + Poultry - January 2004