As most commentators predicted would happen after the oral argument in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, the Court affirmed a $2.9 million jury award to a group of Tyson Foods’ employees whom the company failed to pay overtime. The Court held lower courts may properly certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 based on aggregate proof, so long as the method is reliable and an individual employee could have used it to prove up her own case. It passed on the question of whether uninjured class members could recover damages because the Tyson class members have not received the damages award and the record has no information on how the plaintiffs plan to disburse the award. Also left unaddressed is whether certification is different when it’s pursuant to a specific provision in a statute that allows collective action rather than under Rule 23.

All cases have a story and employment cases are no different. In Tyson Foods, the Court had the choice of telling the story from at least three perspectives—that of the individual employees, the employer, or the employees as a class. The Court focused on the individual employees’ perspective. As a result, while the decision is positive for workers as individuals, it fails to recognize the group harm caused by wage theft and instead focuses on the individual wrong.