Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-201 (2026)

Case Notes

Class Action Certification.

Employees' motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 was granted where: (1) the corporations currently employed approximately 820 employees at the Batesville facility; (2) the employees showed that the common legal question shared by the members of the proposed class was whether the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), § 11-4-201 et seq., and/or common law quantum meruit required the corporations to compensate their employees for donning and doffing related activities; (3) the proposed class members shared the same legal theory, which was that the corporations violated the AMWA by failing to pay them for all compensable work time and they all claimed that donning and doffing activities were compensable under AMWA and common law quantum meruit; (4) there was no indication that the class representatives' desire to receive additional compensation would be adverse to the class's interests and the class representatives indicated a willingness to prosecute their claims through qualified counsel. Ford v. Townsends of Ark., Inc., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46093 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 9, 2010).

Court granted the employees' motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in their action alleging that defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 201 et seq., and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, § 11-4-201 et seq., by failing to compensate hourly employees for time spent donning, doffing, sanitizing required gear and equipment, walking to and from the production floor, and other related and required duties because the employees met the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of R. 23(a), and they demonstrated that common issues predominated and that a class action was the superior method for adjudicating the employees' claims as required by R. 23(b)(3). Garner v. Butterball, LLC, No. 4:10CV01025 JLH, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21859 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 22, 2012).

Because the court denied class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in an earlier filed case on the ground that the named plaintiffs were not typical of or adequate representatives for the class, it was not a reason equally applicable to any later suit, so American Pipe applied and the statute of limitations was tolled by the prior action. Under Arkansas's savings statute, § 16-56-126, the tolling gave plaintiffs one year after certification was denied in the prior action to commence a new action and receive the full protection of the prior action, and because plaintiffs filed the instant action within that year, they received the maximum benefit of the tolling, except that they could not recover from any further back than October 1, 2006, because prior to October 1, 2006, the employer was exempt from the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as it was subject to the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Garner v. Butterball, LLC, No. 4:10CV01025 JLH, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21859 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 22, 2012).

Costs.

Where employers prevailed in a suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minimum Wage Act of the State of Arkansas, § 11-4-201 et seq., seeking unpaid overtime for employees classified as exempt, the employer, as a prevailing defendant, was not precluded from an award of costs because the FLSA was silent on this matter and no provision of the FLSA precluded such an award. Garrison v. ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC, 833 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2016).

Executive Exemption.

Certain team leaders were properly classified as exempt from overtime as working in an executive capacity under the Minimum Wage Act of the State of Arkansas, § 11-4-201 et seq., because their recommendations regarding whether to discharge or retain probationary employees were given particular weight by management, particularly since they were each involved in at least one personnel decision. Garrison v. ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC, 833 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2016).

Summary Judgment Improper.

Trial court erred in granting the employee summary judgment on a claim that a shelter violated the Minimum Wage Act of the State of Arkansas where there were disputed issues of fact as to whether the employee had agreed to exclude sleep time from the computation of her paycheck or if she had agreed to a cap on her wages, and because of the conflicting testimony, it was impossible to discern that either party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Grant Cnty. Unified Cmty. Res. Council, Inc. v. Pennington, 2017 Ark. App. 116, 514 S.W.3d 509 (2017).

Cited: Marine Servs. Unlimited, Inc. v. Rakes, 323 Ark. 757, 918 S.W.2d 132 (1996).