Skip to the main content.
Free Case Review




green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



7 min read

The Role of Supplemental Jurisdiction in De Asencio v. Tyson Foods


In the 2003 case of De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, tackled a labor dispute involving Tyson Foods and its employees' claim of unpaid wages. The lawsuit focused on alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL). The plaintiffs, a group of Tyson Foods workers, claimed that the company failed to provide them with proper overtime pay and unpaid wages. The core issue of the dispute centered around whether certain activities, such as "donning, doffing, and sanitizing," should be considered compensable work time.

The court analyzed jurisdictional issues, the applicability of federal and state laws, and the class certification requirements for FLSA and WPCL claims. Initially, the district court approved the plaintiffs' request to certify the case as a class action under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment & Collection Law. However, the court of appeals later overturned this decision, stating that the district court had exceeded its authority by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the WPCL claim. 

In this article, we will delve into the district court's opinion on de Asencio v. Tyson Foods, examining its implications and the impact it has on class certification for wage and hour claims. We will analyze the legal reasoning employed by the court of appeals in reversing the district court's certification of the WPCL claim and explore how jurisdiction influences the application of federal and state laws in similar class action cases.

Historical Context of the FLSA and the Portal-to-Portal Act

To fully comprehend the significance of the alleged labor violations, it is helpful to understand the background of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Portal-to-Portal Act. These legislations play a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape surrounding the case, and by understanding their historical and functional aspects, we can better grasp the implications of the actions under scrutiny.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), enacted in 1938, established important standards for fair wages, maximum hours, and child labor restrictions in the United States. To address evolving labor practices, the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 was introduced as an amendment to clarify certain ambiguities and challenges in interpreting and applying the FLSA. This act aimed to clarify the boundaries between compensable work time and non-compensable time, specifically addressing tasks performed before and after an employee's principal activities such as the donning, duffing and sanitizing that are the central concern of the Tyson employees' complaint. According to the Portal-to-Portal Act, employers are generally not required to compensate employees for these preliminary and postliminary activities. 

The Opt-In Requirement and its Implications for the Plaintiffs

One significant aspect of the Portal-to-Portal Act is its impact on class action lawsuits under the FLSA. Unlike the standard opt-out provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which automatically includes all eligible members of a class unless they explicitly choose to opt-out, the Portal-to-Portal Act requires employees to "opt-in" to join a class action lawsuit. This "opt-in" requirement places the burden on the employees to actively express their desire to be part of the class action lawsuit. It is a notable departure from the default inclusion of class members and can potentially limit the number of plaintiffs involved in the litigation process.

By understanding the Portal-to-Portal Act's effect on class action lawsuits, we can appreciate the significance of applying it to cases like de Asencio v. Tyson Foods. This requirement for employees to proactively join the class can have implications for the overall strength and size of the plaintiff group, affecting the potential outcome and the level of compensation sought. The "opt-in" provision can impact the reach and effectiveness of class actions in addressing FLSA and WPCL violations. It places a premium on active participation by the affected employees, making it crucial for them to be aware of their rights and the existence of ongoing lawsuits so they can take necessary actions to join opt-in class actions.

The Lawsuit: FLSA and WPCL Claims

Plaintiffs in the De Asencio v. Tyson Foods case were hourly employees at Tyson Foods' chicken-processing plants in Pennsylvania. In Plant One, employees handled production line tasks, while in Plant Two, employees focused on processing chicken meat. Both plants involved handling animal flesh, blood, and fecal matter, making safety precautions necessary.

As part of their job, employees were required to perform activities such as donning, doffing, and sanitizing for their safety. They had to wear protective clothing and regularly rinsed and washed their hands. However, Tyson Foods typically did not compensate employees for the time spent on these tasks.

Notably, the plaintiff employees were not organized, meaning there was no collective bargaining involved in their case.

Timeline Leading Up to the Appeal

In August 2000, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Tyson Foods under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Pennsylvania Wage Payment & Collection Law (WPCL) on behalf of themselves and their co-workers. In October 2000, they sought collective treatment of the FLSA action through opt-in provisions.

In January 2001, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' request to issue notice to prospective class members for the FLSA action. In March 2001, Tyson Foods mailed notices to approximately 3,400 individuals who could potentially be part of the FLSA class. By June 2001, a significant number of 502 employees had joined the FLSA action, prompting Tyson Foods to file a motion to close the class period.

In July 2001, the District Court closed the class period and denied the plaintiffs' motion to reissue notice. Later in December 2001, the District Court concluded the discovery process.

The plaintiffs continued their legal action, filing a motion to certify the supplemental state-law WPCL action in February 2002. They argued that the WPCL action was grounded in an implied contract and presented their case in May 2002. The District Court granted their motion and certified the state WPCL action in July 2002.

It is worth mentioning that the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the FLSA action and exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law action. However, Tyson Foods disputed the District Court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and petitioned for leave to appeal the certification order.

Examining The District Court's Decision on Supplemental Jurisdiction

At the heart of this case is a crucial question: Did the district court appropriately exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law WPCL opt-out action? 

In 1990, Congress expanded the authority of district courts to include non-federal claims. This supplemental jurisdiction can be invoked when state-law claims have a "common nucleus of operative fact" with the claims that initially established the district court's jurisdiction.

In this case, the District Court concluded that the FLSA and WPCL actions were interconnected by the same controversy and shared a common set of operative facts. Both the FLSA and WPCL are laws that address the issue of compensating Tyson's employees for the time spent donning and doffing.

Exceptions to Supplemental Jurisdiction

Under certain circumstances, district courts have the discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Section 1367 of the United States Code outlines exceptions to the concept of supplemental jurisdiction, with one example being when a federal statute expressly provides otherwise. Pendent jurisdiction is not an absolute right but rather a doctrine of discretion.

The circumstances in which district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction include the following:

  1. When the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law.
  2. When the state law claim predominates over the claims within the court's original jurisdiction.
  3. When the court has dismissed all claims falling under its original jurisdiction.
  4. When there are other compelling reasons for the court to decline jurisdiction.

Regarding the case at hand, the most pertinent consideration is whether the state-law claim "substantially predominates" over the federal claim. If it is found that the state claim is the primary focus and the federal claim is secondary, the district court may dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

To summarize, district courts have the discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction in certain circumstances, and the level of predominance of the state claims over the federal claims is a crucial factor in making this determination.

Proof and Scope of FLSA and WPCL Actions

The primary focus of the inquiry in this case revolves around the proof and scope of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL) actions. The FLSA sets forth regulations concerning minimum wage and overtime pay, while the WPCL provides a statutory remedy for breaches of contractual obligations to pay wages.

For the plaintiffs to succeed in their WPCL claim, they need to establish the existence of an implied oral contract between Tyson Foods and its employees. However, there remained uncertainty regarding whether an implied contract alone was sufficient to support a claim under the WPCL.

The WPCL action may necessitate a greater amount of testimony and evidence compared to the FLSA action. This discrepancy arises from the fact that the importance of wage protection in Pennsylvania could result in state issues significantly outweighing the federal scheme.

Given the significance of wage protection in Pennsylvania, it is conceivable that state issues could prevail over the federal scheme. Consequently, it became necessary to gather additional evidence and testimony to effectively pursue the WPCL action.

Impact of Opt-Out and Opt-In Classes on Rights of Parties

Congress has shown a clear preference for opt-in actions when it comes to the federal cause of action regarding WPCL claims. This means that individuals need to actively join the action in order to be considered part of the lawsuit. In the de Asencio v. Tyson Foods case, joining the actions was particularly beneficial because they involved common facts and stemmed from the same case. This joinder would enable the District Court to effectively manage the overall litigation.

Notably, there was a significant difference in the number of plaintiffs between the two prospective classes in this case. This contrast in numbers may suggest that the state WPCL action has a greater predominance. In general, opt-out classes tend to have a larger number of participants, and this can greatly impact the rights of the parties involved. The size of the prospective class also influences the number of remaining plaintiffs outside the class structure who can pursue individual suits.

Deciding whether to mandate an opt-in or opt-out class is a crucial policy decision, and Congress has specifically chosen an opt-in class for FLSA actions. It is important to recognize that even a comparatively small number of federal plaintiffs in the de Asencio v. Tyson Foods case can have a significant impact due to the disparity in the numbers of similarly situated plaintiffs. This disparity has the potential to transform the nature of the action.

Considerations of Size, Proof Requirements, and Federal Interest

Supplemental jurisdiction in the WPCL action was carefully considered due to unresolved state law issues. A dispute existed regarding whether the allegations of an implied employment contract applied to the entire WPCL class, impacting the predominance inquiry. 

Considering the size of the state-law class, the terms of proof required, and the federal interest in opt-in wage actions, it suggested that the federal action may have been considered secondary to the state action. Furthermore, the unique circumstances of this litigation indicated that the certification of the state-law class was a secondary strategy pursued after a smaller federal class had already been obtained.

Another factor to consider was that the state's interest in the implied contract WPCL action appeared to be disproportionately high. Finally, based on careful evaluation, the District Court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the WPCL action was determined to be unsound.

Reversal of District Court's Judgment and Remand for Further Proceedings

Tyson Foods encountered challenges in providing FLSA notices, with approximately 800 notices being returned due to incorrect addresses. Additionally, around 700 employees who were hired after the notices were initially mailed did not receive any notice at all. As a result, the number of plaintiffs represented only about 11% of the eligible class. In response, the District Court closed the opt-in period and denied the motion to reissue notice to all potential plaintiffs. 

The appeals court recognized the significance of the situation and directed the District Court to reopen the opt-in period. With this reopening, additional notice was provided to all eligible employees, addressing the concerns raised previously. It was expected that Tyson Foods would make reasonable efforts to ensure that notice was effectively communicated to all potential class members.

As a result of the appeals court's decision, the judgment of the District Court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.