In Gomez v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142587 (D. Neb. Oct. 2, 2013), the employer argued that the plaintiffs’ damage model did not suffice because the plaintiffs utilized a time study to determine the total amount of damages owed to the class, rather than having established damages on an individualized basis.  There, the employer failed to track the time employees spent performing certain work pre and post-shift work, and instead paid each employee 4 additional minutes for each shift to pay for such time. The court rejected the employer’s argument, stating the such “contentions are aimed at requiring the plaintiffs to establish damages with a level of precision that is not possible as a result of Tyson’s own actions. Tyson miscomprehends the essential fact that the plaintiffs are unable to establish damages on an individualized, job-by-job, day-by-day, basis because it elected not to keep records of actual time, but to use a flat, across-the-board average of four minutes—which, it turns out, was inadequate—to pay for the compensable activities at issue.”