Dr. Mericle Study Analysis: Questions And Answers For Employees

Since Tyson did not keep records of the processing plant employees’ time spent applying and removing the protective gear, the class group relied on statistical data as their evidence for how much overtime they had worked. The statistical evidence used was based on two studies: 1) the Dr. Mericle study, and 2) the Dr. Fox study. In the study conducted by Dr. Mericle, 744 “videotaped observations” were conducted to establish the average time spent applying and removing the protective gear by department. The employees in the “cut and retrim departments” averaged 18 minutes a day, and those in the “kill department” averaged 21 minutes per day . The Dr. Fox study used employee’s individual time records combined with the Mericle study estimates to determine which employees worked more than forty hours in a work week and were entitled to overtime pay. The study found
The plaintiffs’ proposal for allocating the award did not account for elimination of uninjured individuals. Tyson argued that the plaintiffs should be required to identify all uninjured members in the case so that only those injured are awarded. The Supreme Court further held that “the question whether uninjured class members may recover is one of great importance,” but that since awards had not been dispersed and nothing was brought forward on how the award would be distributed, that Tyson “may raise a challenge to the proposed method of allocation when the case returns to the District Court.” [footnote] The Court also raised the point that since Tyson opposed the plaintiffs’ request to bifurcate the liability and damage phases of the trial, and insisted on a single case award, that they made it “difficult to remove uninjured individuals from the class after an award is rendered”