Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00368/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00368-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM HALLMAN and DEANNA WALKER, 

Individually and on Behalf of All Others 

Similarly Situated 

v. No. 3:19-cv-368-DPM 

PLAINTIFFS 

PECO FOODS, INC. DEFENDANT 

ORDER 

Peco is a poultry processing company with eight facilities in three 

states. Hallman and Walker were hourly paid workers at the Peco plant 

in Pocahontas, Arkansas. They seek to conditionally certify a FLSA 

collective for all of Peco' s hourly paid employees since late 2016. They 

say Peco didn't pay them for time they spent donning and doffing 

personal protective equipment; as a result, Peco didn't pay them for all 

the hours they worked over forty hours per week. Peco opposes the 

collective. It says only some of its workers use any protective 

equipment at all; and, for those who do, Peco properly compensates 

them for donning and doffing time. 

The motion, Doc. 8, is granted as significantly modified. The 

Court conditionally certifies a group of hourly paid production 

workers on the Debone-Conelines at Peco' s Pocahontas plant since 

17 December 2016. Hallman and Walker have met the lenient 

applicable standard of showing that this group's members are similarly 

Case 3:19-cv-00368-DPM Document 22 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 3
situated to one another. Helmert v. Butterball, LLC, 2009 WL 5066759, 

at *3 (E.D. Ark. 15 Dec. 2009). They've made the modest factual 

showing-through pleadings and affidavits - that the same kind of 

wage violation allegedly harmed all members of the group. Garrison v. 

ConAgra Foods Packaged Food, LLC, 2013 WL 1247649, at *2 (E.D. Ark. 

27 Mar. 2013). Within the group, the employees had similar duties and 

were subject to uniform pay policies. Although Hallman and Walker 

do not identify themselves as Debone-Conelines workers, they call 

themselves "line workers." And the protective equipment they say 

they wore mirrors Peco's description of the equipment worn by 

Debone-Conelines workers. Doc. 8-7 at 2; Doc. 19-2 at 2. Peco argues 

that it did not employ Walker; a temp agency did. For now, though, 

given the FLSA' s broad definition of employer, the Court finds that 

Peco and the agency jointly employed her. Karlson v. Action Process 

Service & Private Investigations, LLC, 860 F.3d 1089, 1092-93 

(8th Cir. 2017); Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, Inc., 848 F.3d 125, 144 

(4th Cir. 2017). 

The record doesn't show that workers beyond the 

Debone-Conelines at the Pocahontas plant were similarly situated. 

Peco says some of its employees do not wear any protective equipment 

at all, and those who wear it do so with significant variations. Peco also 

says it has different policies for paying employees who wear different 

kinds of this equipment. For instance, it pays some of those employees 

-2-

Case 3:19-cv-00368-DPM Document 22 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 3
for donning and doffing time according to Collective Bargaining 

Agreements. Hallman and Walker argue that Peco applied the same 

policy to all its hourly paid employees, but the plaintiffs' allegations 

and declarations don't bear that out. Peco' s other arguments go to the 

merits. The Court therefore conditionally certifies the significantly 

limited group. Here it is: 

All hourly paid production workers on the 

Debone-Conelines at Peco Foods' Pocahontas, Arkansas 

plant since 17 December 2016. 

Please change the proposed notice and consent forms to reflect the 

modified group definition. Peco must post notice in its Pocahontas 

plant near the Debone-Conelines. Notice to group members by U.S. 

mail or text (at group counsel's election) is fine. There's no need for 

notice by email, too. One follow-up by postcard or text is fine. If notice 

is sent by mail, do not enclose the pleadings. Peco does not have to 

provide email addresses, but it must provide all the other contact 

information by 8 May 2020. The opt-in period will close on 

7 August 2020. The Court otherwise overrules Peco's objections about 

notice and the forms. 

So Ordered. 

D.P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

-3-

Case 3:19-cv-00368-DPM Document 22 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 3