Abadeer et al v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

Filing 262

ORDER: The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the employees' motion for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 206 ), DENIES Tyson's motion for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 210 ), and GRANTS Tyson's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 254 ). Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 10/3/2013. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
HANAA B. ABADEER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TYSON FOODS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:09-cv-00125
Judge Sharp

ORDER
For the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum, the Court enters the
following rulings.
First, with respect to the employees’ motion for partial summary judgment (Docket No.
206), the Court GRANTS summary judgment on the following issues:
(1) the employees’ pre- and post-shift activities are compensable;
(2) Tyson willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay the employees for their pre- and postshift activities;
(3) Tyson’s failure to pay the employees for their pre- and post-shift activities was not in
good faith; and
(4) Tyson’s failure to pay the employees for pre- and post-shift activities breached their
employment contracts.
Further, the Court DENIES summary judgment to the employees on the following issues:
(1) whether the activities the employees performed during their meal periods are
compensable;

(2) whether Tyson willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay the employees for activities
performed during their meal periods;
(3) whether Tyson’s failure to pay the employees for their meal-period activities was not in
good faith; and
(4) whether Tyson’s failure to pay the employees for their meal-period activities breached
their employment contracts.
Finally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT summary judgment on the employees’ claim under § 502-101(b) of the Tennessee Wage Regulation Act.
Second, the Court DENIES Tyson’s motion for partial summary judgment (Docket No.
210).
Third, the Court GRANTS Tyson’s motion to reconsider the 2009 order that declined to
dismiss the employees’ claim under § 50-2-101(b) of the Tennessee Wage Regulation Act
(Docket No. 254) and DISMISSES that claim.
It is SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE