Category Archives: Affirmative Defenses

S.D.Ind.: Court Erred In Resolving MCA Exemption Issues on Motion for Conditional Certification; On Reconsideration Motion Granted

Thompson v. K.R. Drenth Trucking, Inc.

This case was before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying their motion for conditional certification of a collective action.  The case arose out of allegations that defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay a certain group of truck drivers (“plaintiffs”) overtime premiums.  Initially, the court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion.  In doing so, “the Court held that the Motor Carrier Act exemption applied to [the] named Plaintiffs… thus rendering them ineligible for overtime pay and unsuitable collective action representatives.”  In their motion for reconsideration, the plaintiffs asserted that the court had previously erred by inappropriately resolving the merits of the Motor Carrier Act exemption, with respect to the named-plaintiffs at the conditional certification stage.  The court agreed, and upon reconsideration granted conditional certification.

The court explained:

“In the February 11, 2011 Entry (Dkt.68), this Court acknowledged that the issue of whether Thompson and Hayden engaged in interstate commerce was “hotly contested.” Plaintiffs emphasized that both Thompson and Hayden were Non–Recyclable Drivers who regularly transported non-recyclable materials within the State of Indiana. Plaintiffs argued that since they never engaged in interstate commerce as part of their “regular” or “normal” duties, Thompson and Hayden are suitable collective action representatives. KRD counters that any of its drivers, including Thompson and Hayden, “could be called upon at any time to carry any load, whether intrastate or interstate,” meaning the MCA exemption applies. (Dkt. 71 at 4). And, indeed, Thompson and Hayden each crossed Indiana state lines on one occasion to transport KRD equipment to South Carolina.

In its prior entry, the Court found KRD’s argument persuasive, determining that the MCA exemption applied to Thompson and Hayden. In other words, even if Thompson and Hayden rarely crossed state lines (or, for that matter, hauled recyclable material destined for out-of-state purchasers), they could have been called upon to do so in their regular course of work. For this reason, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification.

Having now reviewed a more thorough body of case law, the Court finds that it erred by, in effect, making a merits determination at this early stage. As Plaintiffs emphasize, they have a “lenient” burden at this stage of the proceedings and, as such, courts do not reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims. Fravel v. County of Lake, 2008 WL 2704744, at *2 (N.D.Ind. July 7, 2008) (citations omitted). However, it is worth noting that even at this early stage, a court must also ensure that the proposed class representatives are adequate.”

Luckily for the plaintiffs here, the court recognized its initial error and corrected it almost immediately.  The court’s decision serves as a reminder that courts simply do not resolve the merits of an FLSA case at the conditional certification stage.

Click Thompson v. K.R. Drenth Trucking, Inc. to read the court’s Entry on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Affirmative Defenses, Collective Actions, Exemptions

M.D.Fla.: Employer Not Entitled to Offset Unpaid Overtime Damages Based on Provision of Car, Car Insurance, Gasoline, or a Cell Phone It Provided

Vancamper v. Rental World, Inc.

This case was before the court on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  Among the issues of interest ruled upon, the court held that plaintiff’s pre-arranged shuttling of defendants’ clients to and from the airport to defendants’ rental office for pre-arranged rental of defendant’s cars and the cleaning of such cars, satisfied the individual coverage test of the FLSA.  As discussed here, the court also addressed defendants’ argument that it should be entitled to offset plaintiff’s minimum wage and overtime damages, if any, due to its provision of a car, car insurance, gasoline and cell phone to plaintiff, during his employment.  Holding that such offsets are impermissible under the FLSA, the court explained:

“The parties dispute whether Vancamper’s use of a car, car insurance, gasoline, and a cellular phone provided by Rental World offset the overtime compensation that Rental World owed Vancamper as permitted by 29 U.S.C. § 207(h)(2). (Doc. No. 27 at 14; Doc. No. 33 at 5–6.) The Defendants bear the burden of establishing a credit for overtime compensation under Section 207(h)(2). See Leonard, 614 F.Supp. at 1187 (noting that an employer bears the burden of establishing a credit under 29 U.S.C. § 203(m) against the overtime owed to an employee (citing Donovan, 676 F.2d at 473–76)).

Under Section 207(h)(2), the forms of compensation described in 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(5)-(7) are creditable toward overtime compensation. Those forms of compensation are as follows:

(5) extra compensation provided by a premium rate paid for certain hours worked by the employee in any day or workweek because such hours are hours worked in excess of eight in a day or in excess of the maximum workweek applicable to such employee under subsection (a) of this section or in excess of the employee’s normal working hours or regular working hours, as the case may be;

(6) extra compensation provided by a premium rate paid for work by the employee on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or regular days of rest, or on the sixth or seventh day of the workweek, where such premium rate is not less than one and one-half times the rate established in good faith for like work performed in nonovertime hours on other days;

(7) extra compensation provided by a premium rate paid to the employee, in pursuance of an applicable employment contract or collective-bargaining agreement, for work outside of the hours established in good faith by the contract or agreement as the basic, normal, or regular workday (not exceeding eight hours) or workweek (not exceeding the maximum workweek applicable to such employee under subsection (a) of this section, where such premium rate is not less than one and one-half times the rate established in good faith by the contract or agreement for like work performed during such workday or workweek;

29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(5)-(7).

These provisions plainly contemplate a dollar-for-dollar credit against overtime pay for premium pay awarded on particular days and times. Wheeler v. Hampton Twp., 339 F.3d 238, 245 (3d Cir.2005). The parties do not cite, and the Court does not find, any authority that these provisions encompass use of a car, car insurance, gasoline, or a cellular phone provided by an employer. Moreover, because Vancamper’s uncontroverted time sheets show that he was never paid extra compensation for working during the periods described in Section 207(e)(5)-(7), (Doc. No. 27–5 at 1–102), Defendants are not entitled to any overtime credit under Section 207(h)(2).”

Click Vancamper v. Rental World, Inc. to read the entire order.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affirmative Defenses

D.Mass.: Offsets to Unpaid Overtime, Pursuant to § 207(h)(2) of FLSA, Attributable Only to Singular Workweeks in Which Both Premiums and Overtime Earned Simultaneously

Rudy v. City of Lowell

This case was before court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as to the methodology applicable to calculate plaintiff’s damages.  The interesting, but rarely raised issue: to the extent that the employer is entitled to an offset for certain premium compensation paid to the employee, to what extent can that offset reduce the unpaid overtime wage damages sought by the employee?  Holding that such offsets are only applicable in singular workweeks (i.e. they may only be taken in the week in which the payment giving rise to the offset occurred), the court explained: 

Section 207(h) (2) of the FLSA provides that extra compensation paid as described in paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) of subsection (e) of this section shall be creditable toward overtime compensation payable pursuant to this section.

29 U.S.C. § 207(h)(2). Only the “premium” portion of the contractual overtime rate (the extra one-half on top of the regular rate) may be used to offset the defendant’s statutory overtime liability. O’Brien v. Town of Agawam, 350 F.3d 279, 289 (1st Cir.2003) (“O’Brien I” ).

Here, the CBA allows employees to treat certain non-work days such as vacation, sick and personal days as hours actually worked for the purpose of determining overtime hours. The City also pays some workers time and one-half for working on holidays. The parties do not dispute that the extra compensation provided for in the plaintiffs’ CBA falls within the compensation described in subsection (5), (6) and (7) and can be used to offset defendant’s underpayment, pursuant to § 207(h)(2).

The parties do dispute, however, whether premium compensation earned in one week can be used to offset an underpayment in a different week. Plaintiffs argue that their damages for unpaid overtime should be calculated on a workweek basis and that any offsets pursuant to § 207(h)(2) may only be attributed to the singular workweeks in which the premiums and overtime were earned. In other words, an underpayment one week cannot be offset by a premium payment made in a different week. The defendant contends, to the contrary, that it is entitled to a “cumulative offset”, consisting of all premium payments, against any FLSA overtime it owes, regardless of when the premium payments were earned or made.

The FLSA does not provide an explicit answer to this difference of interpretation and the United States Circuit Courts have taken divergent positions. Some courts have held that § 207(h) offsets should be calculated on a workweek basis. Herman v. Fabri-Centers of Am., Inc., 308 F.3d 580, 585-93 (6th Cir.2002); Howard v. City of Springfield, 274 F.3d 1141, 1147-49 (7th Cir.2001); Roland Elec. Co. v. Black, 163 F.2d 417, 420 (4th Cir.1947); Conzo v. City of New York, 667 F.Supp.2d 279, 291 (S.D.N.Y.2009); Bell v. Iowa Turkey Growers Co-op., 407 F.Supp.2d 1051, 1063 (S.D.Iowa 2006); Nolan v. City of Chicago, 125 F.2d 324, 331 (N.D.Ill.2000). Other courts have allowed defendants to apply a cumulative offset. Singer v. City of Waco, 324 F.3d 813, 826-28 (5th Cir.2003); Kohlheim v. Glynn County, 915 F.2d 1473, 1481 (11th Cir.1990).

The First Circuit has not directly addressed this issue but other sessions in this District have. In O’Brien v. Town of Agawam, United States District Judge Michael A. Ponsor addressed facts analogous to those at bar and held that the employer could apply a cumulative offset. 491 F.Supp.2d 170, 176 (D.Mass.2007) (“O’Brien II” ). The Court surmised that the First Circuit would hold accordingly given its holding in Lupien v. City of Marlborough. Id. at 175. In Lupien, the employer’s practice of compensating employees for overtime by use of compensatory time (“comp time”), instead of in cash, violated the FLSA. 387 F.3d 83 (1st Cir.2004). With respect to damages, the First Circuit held that the employer did not have to pay its employees for overtime hours for which the employee had used comp time, regardless of when the employee used the comp time. The Court reasoned that paying the employees for overtime hours for which they had used comp time would result in double payment for the same overtime hours. In Murphy v. Town of Natick, another case analogous to this one, United States District Judge Richard G. Stearns agreed with the holding in O’Brien II and also allowed defendants to apply a cumulative offset. 516 F.Supp.2d 153, 160-61 (D.Mass.2007).

Although the two cases in this District are directly analogous to this case, the Court disagrees with them with respect to their interpretation of the FLSA and of Lupien. A further analysis of the Lupien case, the purpose of the FLSA and its interpretation by the Department of Labor (“the DOL”) and the First Circuit’s language in O’Brien I all undermine the position adopted by the courts in O’Brien II and Murphy. Rather, they lead to the conclusion that § 207(h)(2) offsets should be calculated on a workweek basis for the following reasons:

1. This case is distinguishable from Lupien and other First Circuit case law indicates support for a workweek offset model. Lupien dealt with an application of § 207(o) (regulating the use of compensatory time), not § 207(h). In fact, § 207(h) is not referred to in that opinion. Furthermore, here, the employees were not given the option of taking comp time rather than overtime payments. Thus, there is no risk in our case, as there was in Lupien, that the plaintiffs will be compensated twice for the same hours. Thus, the Court concludes that the First Circuit’s decision in Lupien does not indicate how it would decide the question at bar.

More on point is the First Circuit’s discussion of § 207(h)(2) in O’Brien I, in which it stated that

The regulations specifically explain how to treat such mid-workweek contractual overtime payments under the Act: only the premium portion of the contractual overtime rate (that is, the amount in excess of the employee’s regular rate) is deemed “overtime” pay and may be offset against any statutory overtime liability in the same week. O’Brien I, 350 F.3d at 289 (citing 29 C.F.R. §§ 778.201(a), 202(a)) (emphasis added). Thus, although not resolving the offset issue in that decision, the First Circuit conveyed its inclination by specifying that offsets pursuant to § 207(h)(2) would apply “in the same week”.

2. The FLSA overtime requirement uses a single workweek as its basic unit of measurement. Scott v. City of New York, 592 F.Supp.2d 475, 484 (S.D.N.Y.2008). Section 207(a)(1) sets forth the basic overtime rule:

no employer shall employ any of his employees … for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.

29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).

The focus on the unitary workweek is prevalent throughout § 207 and the DOL’s interpretation of that section. For example, 29 C.F.R. § 778.103 directs employers to calculate overtime liability on a weekly basis. Further, 29 C.F.R. § 778.104 provides that “[t]he Act takes a single workweek as its standard” and an employer cannot average the number of hours an employee worked in two weeks in order to avoid paying overtime:

[I]f an employee works 30 hours one week and 50 hours the next, he must receive overtime compensation for the overtime hours worked beyond the applicable maximum in the second week, even though the average number of hours worked in the 2 weeks is 40.

It is clear from § 778.104 that cumulative offsets were not contemplated by the DOL. In addition, where the single workweek model is problematic, i.e. when applied to firefighters and law enforcement officers, the FLSA includes a very specific and limited exception. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(k).

With regard to the exact issue before the Court, 29 C.F.R. § 778.202(c) explains that credits pursuant to § 207(h) may be given for overtime due “in that workweek”. See Howard, 274 F.3d at 1148-49; Conzo, 667 F.Supp.2d at 290. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the DOL has also issued an opinion letter stating that surplus overtime premium payments, which may be credited against overtime1 pay pursuant to section 7(h) of FLSA, may not be carried forward or applied retroactively to satisfy an employer’s overtime pay obligation in future or past pay periods.

Letter from Herbert J. Cohen, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, WH-526, 1985 WL 304329 (Dec. 23, 1985).

3. Overtime payments are intended to be paid as soon as is practicable. Although they are not entitled to deference by this Court, several of the DOL’s official interpretations of § 207 demonstrate the FLSA’s emphasis on ensuring that overtime payments are made soon after they are earned. Howard, 274 F.3d at 1148. For instance, 29 C.F.R. § 778.106 provides that overtime payments need not be paid weekly but must be paid as soon as is practicable:

Payment may not be delayed for a period longer than is reasonably necessary for the employer to compute and arrange for payment of the amount due and in no event may payment be delayed beyond the next payday after such computation can be made. See also Nolan, 125 F.Supp.2d at 332 (discussing 29 C.F.R. § 778.106 and holding that offsets for overtime paid apply on a pay period basis).

The reason for requiring employers to calculate and make overtime payments as soon as practicable is obvious: employees are entitled to know how much they will be paid and to prompt payment of what they have earned. As poignantly stated by the Seventh Circuit in Howard v. City of Springfield, if § 207(h)(2) were to permit a cumulative offset, employers could withhold overtime earnings in order to offset them against potential “short” weeks in the future. 274 F.3d at 1148-49. Under such a model, an employee’s overtime payments could be put on hold indefinitely until the employer is either willing or compelled to pay. That outcome is not only illogical but also contradicts the FLSA’s focus on the workweek as a unit and its concern with prompt overtime payments.

In fact, this case uniquely illustrates why a workweek offset is appropriate: if the City had correctly calculated its overtime rate and applied the § 207(h)(2) offsets contemporaneously, it would not have been able to apply those offsets to obligations incurred one or two years later. See id. at 1148. The workweek method of calculating offsets most closely reproduces what the parties would be entitled to had there been no error in the City’s initial computation of its overtime liability. See Nolan, 125 F.Supp.2d at 333.

4. The purpose of the FLSA, to protect workers from “excessive work hours and substandard wages”, is best served by the workweek offset model. Howard, 274 F.3d at 1148; see Herman, 308 F.3d at 585-93. This was clearly articulated in Scott v. City of New York, in which the DOL advocated for the workweek offset model. 592 F.Supp.2d at 484. The District Court in that case found that “both the structure of the Act and its legislative history lend credence to DoL’s interpretation.” Id. The Court explained how a cumulative offset undermines the protections afforded by the FLSA:

The [overtime] requirement protects workers from the imposition of excessive hours by placing an immediate cost on the employer. If employers were allowed to bank credit for contractual overtime against future obligations to pay statutory overtime, it would place workers in the employer’s debt[.] Id. In essence, it would require employees to work large blocks of overtime without premium compensation.

5. Finally, the arguments for applying a cumulative offset are unpersuasive. The City claims that a workweek offset will result in a windfall to the employees but that seems implausible given the fact that, if the City had been correctly calculating its overtime rate and applying the § 207(h)(2) offset at every pay period, the offset would have been applied only to the overtime liability in that pay period. Moreover, the circuit court cases cited by the City do not provide support for a cumulative offset. In Singer v. City of Waco, 324 F.3d at 827, the Fifth Circuit held that § 207(h) was inapplicable, while in Kohlheim v. Glynn County, 915 F.2d at 1481, the Eleventh Circuit did not even explain why it allowed a cumulative offset.

In summary, the Court finds that the plaintiffs’ method of calculating damages is most compatible with both the language and purpose of the FLSA’s overtime requirements and the First Circuit’s understanding of those requirements. As such, the plaintiffs’ damages for unpaid overtime should be calculated on a workweek basis and any offsets pursuant to § 207(h)(2) should be attributed only to the singular workweeks in which both premiums and overtime were earned. The Court concludes that only the premium portions of the extra payments, i.e. the extra one-half of the regular rate, may be used to offset the City’s overtime liability. O’Brien II, 491 F.Supp.2d at 176.”

Click Rudy v. City of Lowell to read the entire order.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affirmative Defenses, Damages

S.D.Tex.: FLSA Does Not Impose A Duty On Employees To Mitigate Their Damages By Notifying Employers Of Their Failure To Pay Proper Overtime

Tran v. Thai

Notwithstanding the fact that the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) imposes no duty on employees to mitigate their damages, a recent trend among attorneys for employers is to plead a so-called “Ellerth/Faragher” defense to claims brought under the FLSA, whereby the employer essentially argues that it’s the employee’s fault they didn’t get paid overtime, because they failed to complain about the employer’s failure to pay them appropriate wages.  An informal survey of Plaintiff’s attorneys by this author confirms that while defense lawyers are quick to plead such a defense, they are almost as quick in most cases to withdraw the defense- likely based on their understanding that it is frivolous- when pressed at the outset of FLSA litigation.  Here however, the defense was pled and the case proceeded to the summary judgment stage, giving the court a chance to address the unfounded affirmative defense.  Noting that such a defense was simply a defense of mitigation, which is not an appropriate defense to claims under the FLSA, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the defense.

The court reasoned:

“The defendants argue that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by failing “to take reasonable actions to notify Nails of America # 3 of any alleged unpaid overtime accounts” and because “Plaintiff worked at Bow & Mary-Nails of America # 5, LLC from April 2007 through August 2008 and failed to take reasonable actions and tell Defendants of any alleged unpaid overtime amounts at any point.” (Docket Entry No. 59, at 17). The defendants have not cited any authority imposing a duty on an FLSA plaintiff to notify an employer of alleged FLSA violations. Courts have found that as a matter of law “there is no requirement to mitigate overtime wages under the FLSA.” King v. ITT Educ. Servs., Inc., No. 3:09-cv-848, 2009 WL 3583881, at *3 (M.D.Fla. Oct.27, 2009); see also Gonzalez v. Spears Holdings, Inc., No. 09-60501-CV, 2009 WL 2391233, at *3 (S.D.Fla. July 31, 2009) (granting a motion to strike mitigation-of-damages affirmative defense because there is no duty to mitigate damages under the FLSA, nor a duty to provide notice as to any alleged unlawful pay practice); Lopez v. Autoserve LLC, No. 05 C 3554, 2005 WL 3116053, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Nov.17, 2005) (granting the plaintiff’s motion to strike mitigation-ofdamages affirmative defense because there is no duty to mitigate damages under the FLSA); Perez-Nunez v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., No. 008-61583-CIV, 2009 WL 723873, at *2 (S.D.Fla. Mar.13, 2009) (granting motion to strike the mitigation-of-damages affirmative defense and holding that a duty-to-mitigate-damages defense based on the plaintiff’s failure to timely disclose alleged violations to her employer so that the terms of her employment could be corrected failed as a matter of law under the FLSA).

Because there is no duty to mitigate overtime wages under the FLSA, this court grants the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to this affirmative defense.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Affirmative Defenses

5th Cir.: Severance Payment Not A Set-off To FLSA Damages for Unpaid Overtime

Martin v. PepsiAmericas, Inc.

Plaintiff sued her former employer, to recover unpaid overtime wages allegedly due under the Fair Labor StandardsAct (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.  The district court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after finding that Plaintiff’s maximum potential recovery was less than the value of her severance package received from Defendant, which the district court determined should be set-off against anypotential damages awarded to Plaintiff.  Holding that such a set-off was improper, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The court reasoned:

“At issue is whether Pepsi can set-off the value of benefits it paid to Karen Martin under her severance agreement against Martin’s FLSA claim for overtime wages. The district court found that Pepsi was entitled to the set-off and, consequently, dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We review a court’s ruling on a FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss de novo. See Budget Prepay, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 605 F.3d 273, 278 (5th Cir.2010) (citing Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001)). When challenging a 12(b)(1) motion, the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proof. Id.

Pepsi initially contends that our opinion in Singer v. City of Waco, 324 F.3d 813 (5th Cir.2003), should be read broadly to allow set-offs in FLSA cases so long as they do not result in sub-minimum wages. Generally speaking, courts have been hesitant to permit an employer to file counterclaimsFN1 in FLSA suits for money the employer claims the employee owes it, or for damages the employee’s tortious conduct allegedly caused. See Brennan v. Heard, 491 F.2d 1, 4 (5th Cir.1974), rev’d on other grounds by McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 108 S.Ct. 1677, 100 L.Ed.2d 115 (1988); see also Donovan v. Pointon, 717 F.2d 1320, 1323 (10th Cir.1983) (“[T]he purpose of the present action is to bring Pointon into compliance with the Act by enforcing a public right. To permit him in such a proceeding to try his private claims, real or imagined, against his employees would delay and even subvert the whole process. Pointon is free to sue his employees in state court ….”).

In Heard, we said that set-offs and counterclaims are inappropriate in any case brought to enforce the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions. In that case, the Secretary of Labor sued an employer to enjoin it from withholding base and overtime wages from employees. Heard, 491 F.2d at 2. After finding a willful FLSA violation, the district court ordered the employer to pay its employees back wages, but permitted a set-off for the value of goods the employer had furnished to its employees. Id. This court reversed, stating that “[t]he federal courts were not designated by the FLSA to be either collection agents or arbitrators for an employee’s creditors.” Id. at 4. Noting that the only function of the federal judiciary under the FLSA “is to assure to the employees of a covered company a minimum level of wages,” we said that “[a]rguments and disputations over claims against those wages are foreign to the genesis, history, interpretation, and philosophy of the Act.” Id. And we observed that “[t]he only economic feud contemplated by the FLSA involves the employer’s obedience to minimum wage and overtime standards. To clutter [FLSA] proceedings with the minutiae of other employer-employee relationships would be antithetical to the purpose of the Act.” Id.; see also Pointon, 717 F.2d at 1323 (declining to address employer’s counterclaim for tortious sabotage in employee’s FLSA suit); Hodgson v. Lakewood Broad. Serv., 330 F.Supp. 670, 673 (D.Colo.1971) (declining to allow set-off or counterclaim against Secretary for employee’s breach of employment contract).

This language notwithstanding, in Singer v. City of Waco, 324 F.3d 813 (5th Cir.2003), we allowed an employer to set-off certain wage overpayments against the employees’ overall damages award. Singer involved a class of municipal fire fighters whose hours varied among pay periods. The city’s method for calculating their regular rate of pay under the FLSA resulted in an underpayment of the fire fighters’ overtime pay during some pay periods. Id. at 817, 824-25. When calculating how much money the city owed the fire fighters in unpaid overtime wages, “the district court found that the City’s method of calculating overtime compensation resulted in small deficiencies … in the work periods in which the fire fighters worked 120 hours,” but “the City’s method resulted in considerable overpayments ($126.20) in the work periods in which the fire fighters worked 96 hours.” Id. at 826. Because of this incongruity, the district court allowed the employer to set-off overpayments in some work periods against shortfalls in others. Id. at 826. We viewed these overpayments as akin to pre-payments, not prohibited by the Code of Federal Regulations or the FLSA, and affirmed. Id. We reconciled our holdings in Singer and Heard by observing that “the offsets permitted by the district court [in Heard] caused the final awards of many of the defendants’ workers to drop below the statutory minimum.” Id. at 828 n. 9 (quoting Heard, 491 F.2d at 3) (internal quotation marks omitted). Meanwhile, in Singer, “no party contend[ed] that the offset might cause the fire fighters’ wages to fall below the statutory minimum wage.” 324 F.3d at 828 n. 9.

Relying on this distinction, Pepsi contends that Singer should be read to limit Heard, to stand for the proposition that set-offs are appropriate in FLSA cases so long as they do not cause an employee’s wages to fall below the statutory minimum. Pepsi has cited, as did the district court, several lower court decisions from outside this circuit that have given Singer such a broad construction. See, e.g. Hanson v. ABC Liquors, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-966, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108954, at *7-8 (M.D.Fla. Nov. 9, 2009) (collecting cases); see also Docket Entry No. 110, Memorandum Order at 5 n.3. These cases, however, predate our opinion in Gagnon v. United Technisource, Inc., 607 F.3d 1036 (5th Cir.2010), where we clarified that Heard’s longstanding prohibition of set-offs in FLSA cases is the rule in this circuit and Singer an exception.

In Gagnon, the district court found an FLSA overtime violation and awarded damages to the plaintiff. 607 F.3d at 1040. The defendant-employer counterclaimed and sought a set-off in the amount equal to the damages caused by the plaintiff’s breach of contract (i.e., his failure to notify the employer of his new address, as he was contractually obligated to do). Id. The district court did not address the employer’s counterclaims, and this court gave them short shrift likewise, holding that “our precedent suggests that such claims should not be addressed in an FLSA action.” 607 F.3d at 1042 (citing Heard, 491 F.2d at 4).

We specifically addressed the employer’s set-off claim in Gagnon, despite its semblance to the contract counterclaim, to clarify a reasonable uncertainty over Singer’s reach. See 607 F.3d at 1043 (“we nonetheless address the claim because we have previously held that offsets are permissible in FLSA actions”). Gagnon distinguished the set-off allowed in Singer as one that “simply acknowledged that the City had already paid the bulk of its overtime obligations.” Id. (citing Singer, 324 F.3d at 828) (emphasis in original). Gagnon (the employee), by contrast, was not paid “any additional sums that could be characterized as advanced or inappropriate amounts subject to an offset against the overtime owed to him,” id., and thus, a set-off was inappropriate.

In Gagnon, we rejected the employer’s argument, which Pepsi renews here, that Singer stands for the proposition that set-offs are allowed in FLSA cases so long as they do not result in sub-minimum wages. Although that reading of Singer may have been plausible at one time, Gagnon clarified that it was the unique character of the set-offs in Singer-that they represented overtime obligations already fulfilled-that allowed for a narrow exception to the bright-line rule spelled out in Heard. We continue to look with disfavor on set-offs unless the money being set-off can be considered wages that the employer pre-paid to the plaintiff-employee.

Pepsi contends, alternatively, that the benefits paid to Martin are similar to the fire fighters’ wages set-off in Singer because, in both cases, the employer paid some extra money or benefits to the employee to which the employee was not otherwise entitled. And in the opinion granting Pepsi’s motion to dismiss, the district court cited several lower court decisions that have allowed employers to plead set-offs as an affirmative defense in FLSA wage cases “where the employer paid the employee funds to which the employee was not entitled.” (Docket Entry No. 110, Memorandum Order at 5 & n.3.) This misconstrues the reciprocal nature of the benefits bargained for in Martin’s severance agreement. Although Martin had no legal entitlement to the benefits included in her severance package, these benefits were not gratuitous. Pepsi paid these benefits in return for Martin’s release of claims. That Martin later sued Pepsi on state law claims simply means that Martin did not keep her end of the agreement. Pepsi’s damages flow from a breach of contract. Pepsi is not entitled to set-off those damages here because unlike Singer, the money and benefits Pepsi paid to Martin were not wage payments, advance or otherwise; they were not related to her labors at all.

Because we find that the district court erred in setting-off the value of Martin’s severance package against her potential recovery at trial, we VACATE the district court’s dismissal of Martin’s FLSA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and REMAND the case for further proceedings.”

Click Martin v. PepsiAmericas, Inc. to read the entire decision.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affirmative Defenses

11th Cir.: Trial Court Erred In Allowing Defendants To Amend Their Affirmative Defenses At Trial To Add Previously Unpled Exemption

Diaz v. Jaguar Restaurant Group, LLC

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants, her former employer, for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–216. During trial, the district court allowed Jaguar to amend its Answer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b) to include the administrative exemption as an affirmative defense as it found that Diaz had injected the issue through her testimony at trial. The jury returned a verdict finding that Diaz had worked more than 40 hours per week for which she was not compensated, but also finding that she was exempt from the requirements of the FLSA as she was an administrative employee.  On appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, Plaintiff challenged the district court’s decision to allow Defendant to amend its Answer during trial. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, and remand the case to the district court for a trial on damages.

In reversing, the Eleventh Circuit reasoned:

“Jaguar failed to plead the administrative exemption as an affirmative defense in its Answer. In the fourteen months between the filing of its Answer and the commencement of trial, Jaguar never moved to amend its Answer to include the administrative exemption. Jaguar also did not raise the issue of the administrative exemption during discovery. The only time Jaguar raised the issue prior to trial was by inserting it in one line of the Joint Pretrial Stipulation and in the proposed Joint Jury Instructions, to which Diaz objected. Jaguar did not raise the issue during the pretrial conference and the district court did not include the issue in its Omnibus Order Following Pretrial Conference. If ever there were a classic case of waiver, this is it! See Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1239 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Failure to plead an affirmative defense generally results in a waiver of that defense.”). Jaguar repeatedly waived the administrative exemption defense by failing to plead the defense in its Answer and by failing to move to amend its Answer before trial.

Ideally, cases should be tried on their merits. Accordingly, even if Jaguar failed to plead the administrative exemption defense, the district court could allow Jaguar to amend its Answer during trial if the issue was tried by the parties’ express or implied consent, or included in a pretrial order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b); see Steger v. Gen. Elec. Co., 318 F.3d 1066, 1077 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[I]ssues not raised in the pleadings may be treated as if they were properly raised when they are ‘tried by express or implied consent of the parties,’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b), or are included in a pretrial order.”). In this case, the issue was not included in the district court’s Omnibus Order Following Pretrial Conference. Further, it is clear that the administrative exemption issue was not tried by the parties’ express consent as Diaz opposed the insertion of the issue in the Joint Pretrial Stipulation, proposed Joint Jury Instructions, and at trial. See R. Vol. 5: 160–65. The district court, however, found that the issue was tried by implied consent as it believed Diaz introduced the issue of the administrative exemption through her testimony at trial. Thus, the district court allowed the amendment.

The district court erred in finding that the administrative exemption issue was tried by implied consent and in thereby allowing Jaguar to amend its Answer.  That issue was not tried by implied consent as Diaz’s testimony was relevant to another defense in this case: Jaguar’s independent contractor defense. “The introduction of evidence arguably relevant to pleaded issues cannot serve to give a party fair notice that new issues are entering the case.” Wesco Mfg., Inc. v. Tropical Attractions of Palm Beach, Inc., 833 F.2d 1484, 1487 (11th Cir. 1987); see Jimenez v. Tuna Vessel Granada, 652 F.2d 415, 421 (5th Cir. 1981) (stating that implied consent cannot be found when “evidence is introduced that is relevant to an issue already in the case and there is no indication that the party who introduced the evidence was seeking to raise a new issue”). Diaz’s testimony was relevant to counter Jaguar’s independent contractor defense, and she clearly was not seeking to raise the administrative exemption as a new issue. Further, we cannot conclude that her testimony was “much more strongly relevant” to the administrative exemption than to the independent contractor defense, which could be construed as notice of a new issue. See United States f/u/b/o Seminole Sheet Metal Co. v. SCI, Inc., 828 F.2d 671, 677 (11th Cir. 1987). Thus, her testimony cannot be considered implied consent to try the administrative exemption.”

Click Diaz v. Jaguar Restaurant Group, LLC, to read the entire opinion.

2 Comments

Filed under Affirmative Defenses, Exemptions, Trial

11th Cir.: Res Judicata Did Not Bar Claims Of FLSA Retaliation; Such Claims Arose After The Original Pleading Was Filed In The Earlier Litigation, So Not Previously Litigated

Moore v. Sei Pak

This case was before the Eleventh Circuit on Plaintiffs’ appeal of summary judgment in favor of their employer (“Pak”), in their suit against Pak for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3).  The Plaintiffs sued Pak for retaliation because Pak denied them positions as independent contractors after they initiated an earlier FLSA suit against Pak for unpaid overtime compensation.  The Plaintiffs filed the separate retaliation suit while the overtime compensation suit, which the parties ultimately settled, was still pending. The magistrate judge granted Pak’s summary judgment motion on res judicata grounds after it concluded that the Plaintiffs had raised their retaliation claim in the prior suit. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that their prior FLSA overtime compensation lawsuit does not preclude their current retaliation suit, because the facts underlying the retaliation suit occurred subsequent to the filing of the original case.  The Eleventh Circuit agreed and reversed the lower court reasoning:

“We review de novo a district court’s order on a motion for summary judgment and construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.   Van Voorhis v. Hillsborough Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 512 F.3d 1296, 1299 (11th Cir.2008). We also review de novo a district court’s application of res judicata. EEOC v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 383 F.3d 1280, 1285 (11th Cir.2004). We apply federal law “because federal preclusion principles apply to prior federal decisions.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

“Under res judicata … a final judgment on the merits bars the parties to a prior action from re-litigating a cause of action that was or could have been raised in that action.” In re Piper Aircraft Corp., 244 F.3d 1289, 1296 (11th Cir.2001). “Res judicata applies not only to the precise legal theory presented in the previous litigation, but to all legal theories and claims arising out of the same operative nucleus of fact.” Manning v. City of Auburn, 953 F.2d 1355, 1358-59 (11th Cir.1992) (quotation marks omitted).

[A] party seeking to invoke the doctrine must establish … four initial elements: (1) the prior decision must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) there must have been a final judgment on the merits; (3) both cases must involve the same parties or their privies; and (4) both cases must involve the same causes of action.  In re Piper Aircraft Corp., 244 F.3d at 1296. If these requirements are met, the court must determine whether the new claim could have been raised in the prior suit. Id. The preclusion of claims that “could have been brought” in earlier litigation does not include claims that arose after the original complaint was filed in the prior action, unless the plaintiff actually asserted the claim in “supplemental pleadings or otherwise.Pleming v. Universal-Rundle Corp., 142 F.3d 1354, 1357 (11th Cir.1998).

We conclude that even if this case satisfies the res judicata elements, the Plaintiffs’ retaliation claim is one “which ar[o]se after the original pleading [wa]s filed in the earlier litigation” and is not barred unless Plaintiffs asserted the claim in the prior litigation. Id. at 1357. The Plaintiffs filed their overtime compensation suit against Pak on March 4, 2008. Construing the facts in the Plaintiffs’ favor, the retaliation claim did not arise until November 21, 2008, when Pak excluded Plaintiffs from an opportunity to apply for independent contractor positions. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ retaliation claim arose eight months after they filed their original complaint.

The Plaintiffs could not have asserted the retaliation claim in their initial complaint in the overtime compensation suit and were free to decline to do so through supplemental pleadings. We observed in Manning “that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), which governs supplemental pleadings, makes such a pleading optional and held that the doctrine of res judicata does not punish a plaintiff for exercising the option not to supplement the pleadings with an after-acquired claim.” Pleming, 142 F.3d at 1357 (citing Manning, 953 F.2d at 1360).

We also conclude that the Plaintiffs never asserted their retaliation claim in their overtime compensation suit “through supplemental pleadings or otherwise.” Pleming, 142 F.3d at 1357 (emphasis omitted). In the overtime compensation suit, the Plaintiffs’ only reference to retaliation occurred in the status report they filed with the court immediately before the case settled. In this report, the Plaintiffs indicated that mediation had failed, and asked the court to try the case “as soon as possible” based on several unresolved concerns, including Pak’s failure “to … offer Plaintiffs the opportunity to become subcontractors for Defendant, an opportunity previously not granted to Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs were named on a lawsuit against Defendant.” This Court has held that while “a litigant may ‘otherwise’ assert a claim, without filing a supplemental pleading … these other means must conform with the rules of procedure.” Pleming, 142 F.3d at 1358. We have identified specific examples of other means of asserting a claim that trigger res judicata, such as “an amendment pursuant to Rule 15(b) or the assertion of a claim through a pretrial order pursuant to Rule 16(e).” Id. Neither of these options was pursued here. Pak concedes that, in light of Pleming, the magistrate judge’s reliance on the status report as the basis for concluding that the Plaintiffs asserted a retaliation claim in the prior litigation “may have been incorrect.”

The Plaintiffs’ reference to Pak’s retaliation is similar to the references we have held insufficient to assert a claim before a district court. In Coon v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 829 F.2d 1563, 1568-71 (11th Cir.1987), we affirmed the district court’s refusal to consider the plaintiff’s claims of specific acts of discrimination, which she included in her briefs, discovery requests, and motions, but never added to her complaint. We explained that “[t]hese claims were not somehow ‘present’ within her complaint, despite her failure to allege them.” Id. at 1570. We also rejected the notion that the claims were before the district court because they were part of a “continuing violation.” Id.; see also Pleming, 142 F.3d at 1358 (collecting cases). We conclude that the Plaintiffs’ reference to retaliation in the status report was insufficient to put their retaliation claim properly before the district court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

For these reasons, we hold that res judicata does not bar the Plaintiffs’ retaliation claim against Pak. We VACATE and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Click Moore v. Sei Pak to read the entire decision.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affirmative Defenses, Retaliation

M.D.Ala.: Wal-Mart Assistant Store Managers (ASMs) May Be Entitled To Overtime Pay; Wal-Mart’s Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

This case was before the Court on Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment.  Wal-Mart asserted that the Plaintiffs, two (2) former Assistant Store Managers (“ASMs”) were exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  Citing issues of fact raised by the Plaintiffs, the Court denied Wal-Mart’s motion.

After noting that the court was due to accept the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs (as the non-moving party), the court recited the following facts pertinent to the motion:

“The facts of this case concern the job duties of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Nancy Davis was employed at the Wal-Mart in Opelika, Alabama as a salaried assistant manager from June of 2006 until September 2009. Davis states that during her employment she performed such tasks as stocking, acting as cashier, sweeping, mopping, cleaning, unloading trucks, bringing in shopping carts, and doing price checks. Plaintiff Shirley Toliver was employed with the Wal-Mart store in Opelika from August 2001 to May 20, 2009. She also states that she performed tasks such as stocking, running the cash register, sweeping, mopping, cleaning, loading trucks, pulling pallets, bringing in shopping carts and performing price checks. The Plaintiffs have testified in their depositions that these tasks comprised 80-90 % of their work duties. Wal-Mart has presented documentary and deposition evidence that Davis and Toliver also engaged in managerial tasks, including delegation of duties, interviewing and hiring applicants, coaching associates, evaluating associates, and terminating associates.”

The Court held that, on these facts, the Plaintiffs could not be said, as a matter of law, to fall under the FLSA’s executive exemption or administrative exemption.  After outlining the elements of the executive exemption, the Court reasoned:

“In a case relied upon by Davis and Toliver, the Eleventh Circuit has engaged in a lengthy analysis of the primary duty requirement in the context of store managers of Family Dollar Stores, a retail establishment. See Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir.2008).  In Morgan, the plaintiffs were store managers who spent 80 to 90 % of their time performing manual labor tasks such as stocking shelves, running cash registers, unloading trucks, and cleaning. Id. at 1270. They were also assigned tasks such as completing paper work and making bank deposits, but those tasks were strictly prescribed. In evaluating the claim that the executive exemption did not apply to these managers, the court emphasized that at the executive exemption to FLSA overtime pay is to be narrowly construed because the Supreme Court has directed that the exemption be applied only to plaintiffs who fall “clearly and unmistakably within the terms and spirit of the exemption.” Id. at 1269 (citation omitted). The court further noted that the inquiry is fact-intensive, and if there is evidence “on both sides of the question,” the facts should be determined by a jury. Id. The factor of time spent on manual, nonexempt work, however, did not establish that the plaintiffs were nonexempt. Id. Instead, the court found that the jury’s determination that the managers were nonexempt was supported not just by the amount of time spent performing nonexempt work, but also by evidence that non-managerial tasks were of “equal or greater importance to the store’s functioning and success.” Id. The court found significant that the employer described manual labor performed on delivery day as an “essential function” of the position. Id. The court also concluded that the evidence of little time spent in discretionary matters, little freedom from direct supervision, and the difference between managerial and other wages supported the jury’s finding of non-exempt work as the primary duty. Id. at 1270-71. As Wal-Mart points out, the court distinguished other courts’ opinions on the basis that in Morgan the manual labor was not performed concurrently with managerial duties. Id. at 1272-73.

Davis and Toliver contend that here, as in Morgan, all four of the primary duty factors weigh in their favor in this case. With respect to managerial duties, Davis and Toliver contend that they spent the vast majority of their time performing non-managerial tasks, and that the managerial tasks they performed were relatively less important than their non-managerial duties. The court begins with the factor of the amount of time spent performing management duties.

1. Time Spent Performing Management Duties

Davis and Toliver have testified that 80-90 % of their time was spent performing nonmanagerial tasks. Davis Dep. at page 125: 19-126: 4. Davis stated that she would run the cash register for 15 or 20 minutes at a time all day long, three out of five days a week, on day and night shifts, and that she found herself doing sweeping and cleaning, particularly on the third shift. Id. at page 128: 18-129:16. Toliver testified that she performed the same tasks testified to by Davis, adding that sometimes she would be a cashier for three hours at a time. Toliver Dep. at pages 95: 16-96: 4, 17-11-19.

While Wal-Mart characterizes this testimony as self-serving, the court must accept the Plaintiffs’ testimony that they performed the sort of tasks described 80-90 % of the time. Those tasks testified to are not considered managerial duties.

Managerial duties are defined by the C.F.R. to include interviewing, selecting and training employees, directing the work of employees, maintaining sales records, appraising employees’ productivity and efficiency, handling employee complaints and grievances, disciplining employees, planning work, determining techniques to be used, apportioning work, determining merchandise to be bought and sold, controlling distribution of merchandise, providing for safety and security of employees or property, planning and controlling the budget, and implementing and monitoring legal compliance measures. 29 C.F.R. § 541.102. Clearly the tasks which Davis and Toliver have identified as comprising 80-90 % of their working time do not fall within these examples of managerial tasks. The C.F.R. also states, however, that

Occasional, infrequently recurring tasks that cannot practicably be performed by nonexempt employees, but are the means for an exempt employee to properly carry out exempt functions and responsibilities, are considered exempt work. The following factors should be considered in determining whether such work is exempt work: Whether the same work is performed by any of the exempt employee’s subordinates; practicability of delegating the work to a nonexempt employee; whether the exempt employee performs the task frequently or occasionally; and existence of an industry practice for the exempt employee to perform the task.  29 C.F.R. § 541.707.

The Plaintiffs argue that the extent to which they performed nonmanagerial tasks meant that the tasks cannot be considered to be exempt work. Davis and Toliver state that their time spent doing the managerial duties of performance evaluation was minimal, averaging 10 to 15 minutes. Toliver Dep. at page 98: 8-16. Davis described her duties as running the register, pulling pallets, unloading trucks, working freight by pulling it off a truck and putting it on the shelf, zoning by fronting merchandise, and cleaning. Davis Dep. at 156: 3-10. Given the testimony of the extent of their nonmanagerial duties, the court concludes that a reasonable jury could conclude that the tasks which, according to the Plaintiffs’ testimony, comprised 80-90 % of their work, were more than occasional, infrequently recurring tasks and, therefore, were nonexempt tasks.

Wal-Mart argues that the Plaintiffs’ choice to perform nonexempt tasks, rather than to delegate those tasks, because they were ultimately responsible for those tasks, does not make them nonexempt. Wal-Mart points to the C.F.R. and argues that concurrent performance of exempt and nonexempt work does not disqualify an employee from the executive exemption. See 29 C.F.R. § 106(a). That C.F.R. section states, however, that if exempt and nonexempt work occurs concurrently, the exemption can still apply, if the requirements for the exemption are otherwise met. Id. The C.F.R. offers as an example an assistant manager who supervises employees and serves customers at the same time, without losing the executive exemption. § 541.106(b). The C.F.R. draws a distinction between persons who make the decision of when to perform nonexempt duties and those directed to perform exempt work. § 541.106(a).

The Eleventh Circuit relied on such a distinction in Morgan. The court distinguished cases from other courts which had given less weight to plaintiffs’ estimates of time performed on nonexempt tasks because those plaintiffs concurrently performed exempt tasks. Morgan, 551 F.3d at 1272. The court explained that the amount of manual labor performed by the managers in Morgan overwhelmed their capacity to perform managerial duties concurrently during store hours. Morgan, 551 F.3d at 1272. The court further explained that management duties could not be performed concurrently because, for example, “a store manager unloading a truck and stocking the storeroom was not concurrently supervising the cashier out front.” Id. at 1273. The court noted that many of the tasks were performed before and after the store closed.   Id. at 1272. The court concluded that the jury “may well have given more weight to the Plaintiffs’ evidence that they spent 80 to 90 % of their time solely on nonexempt work.” Id.

Davis stated in her deposition that she would receive managerial notes from the store manager which would tell her tasks that needed to be accomplished during a shift. Id. at page 126:15-127:14. She explained that “[w]e were told what to do, either find somebody to do it or do it yourself.” Id. at page 126: 15-16. Davis explained that she was assigned duties by the store manager or co-manager in the shift notes that told her what they wanted done. Id. at 150:8-22. If there were minimal associates working, she had to perform the manual labor tasks herself. Id. at page 150: 17-151:17. Davis gave as an example that if two or three trucks came in carrying freight during the third shift, she would have to go to that department. Id. at 151:10-17. She further explained that she would get in trouble for not getting the tasks done. Id. at 151:21-22. Davis testified that she performed sweeping, mopping, and cleaning duties “mostly on third shift” because there were not “enough associates to get everything done that needed to be done.” Id. at 129: 8-16. She also stated that she has been told to scrape dirt from under shelves with a scraper on third shift. Id. at 156:18-157. Davis also testified that she would stay on past the end of her shift on some occasions so that she averaged 54 to 65 hours per week. Id. at page 110: 13-19.

According to the Plaintiffs’ evidence, they were not responsible for the scheduling of associates. The scheduling of employees was conducted by co-Manager Ken King. King explained in his deposition that he set the schedules based on a budget he was provided by corporate headquarters, which came down through the regional and district manager. King Dep. at page 12. Although King also stated that assistant managers also set schedules, in her deposition, Toliver disputed that she made schedules, and stated that the co-manager made the schedules. Toliver Dep. at page 20: 8-12, 21-3.

While Wal-Mart has contended that the Plaintiffs chose to perform nonmanagerial tasks instead of delegating those tasks, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movants, the Plaintiffs were directed to perform tasks even in the face of inadequate staffing levels. Furthermore, the nonexempt tasks performed by Davis and Toliver in this case were similar to those in Morgan, such as unloading of freight, which would not allow for the supervision of associates in other sections of the store. The court concludes, therefore, that Wal-Mart has not conclusively shown that the nonexempt tasks were performed concurrently with exempt tasks, for purposes of its affirmative defense. Here, as in Morgan, the court concludes that there is sufficient evidence to support the Plaintiffs’ estimate that 80 % to 90 % of their work was nonexempt work.

The C.F.R. states that the amount of time spent on managerial tasks “can be a useful guide in determining whether exempt work is the primary duty of an employee,” but it is not the sole test. § 541.700(b). A person who spends more than 50 percent of her time performing exempt work generally will satisfy the primary duty requirement, but “employees who do not spend more than 50 percent of their time performing exempt duties may nonetheless meet the primary duty requirement if the other factors support such a conclusion.” Id.

Given the Plaintiffs’ evidence, the factor of the amount of time spent on nonexempt tasks, while not dispositive, weighs against a finding of exempt work as the primary duty in this case. See Morgan, 551 F.3d at 1270.

2. Relative Importance of Managerial Duties

The next primary duty factor to be examined is the relative importance of managerial duties as compared to other duties. 29 C.F .R. § 541.700(a).

Wal-Mart has submitted multiple records evidencing managerial tasks, such as coaching for improvement of hourly associates, performance evaluations, and job offers. Wal-Mart states that Davis and Toliver managed recognized departments during the day shift, and were “in charge” of the store on night shifts. Wal-Mart further states that these duties were important, as they were evaluated in the Plaintiffs’ performance evaluations.

Davis and Toliver do not dispute that they coached associate employees, evaluated performance of associates, checked the status of inventory, and monitored store conditions. See Doc. # 20 at page 15. As noted above, however, they state their time spent doing managerial duties, for example, employee evaluation, was minimal, consisting of 10 to 15 minutes, and that these duties were secondary to their primary duties of waiting on customers, stocking shelves, cleaning, merchandising, unloading delivery trucks, and bringing in shopping carts. As further evidence of the relative importance of the nonmanagerial tasks, the Plaintiffs point out that in the job description’s listing of physical activities necessary to perform essential job functions an assistant manager is required to move, lift, carry, and place merchandise and supplies weighing up to 25 pounds without assistance, and to grasp, turn, and manipulate objects of varying size and weight, requiring fine motor skills and hand-eye coordination. As described extensively above, there is evidence that Davis and Toliver were required to perform manual tasks also performed by associates, and that the budget-based schedule, which left the store understaffed at times, required them to perform manual labor tasks.

In Morgan, the court concluded that nonmanagerial duties were more important because the essential job functions as listed by the employer required that the managers do the same work as stock clerks and cashiers, and that a large amount of manual labor by managers was a key to the business model, given the limited payroll and large amount of labor that had to be performed. Morgan, 551 F.2d at 1270.

Viewing the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, the court concludes that here, as in Morgan, there is enough evidence for a jury to find not only that nonmanagerial tasks consumed 80-90 % of Davis and Toliver’s time, but also that the nonmanagerial work was relatively more important than managerial work.

3. Relative freedom from Direct Supervision

As to the analytical factor of relative freedom from direct supervision, Davis and Toliver argue that not only were they governed by policies put in place by Wal-Mart at its corporate headquarters, but also policies created, implemented, and enforced by the store manager or co-manager who were present in the store daily. For instance, Toliver states in her deposition that there was a time during which assistant managers set the schedules, but during the relevant time period, the co-manager set schedules. Toliver Dep. at page 20: 4-12. She also explained that she thought it should be within her discretion to decide whom to interview for an position which was open, but that she was told whom to choose at times. Id. at page 78: 3-12. She testified that the rate of starting pay was dictated by policy and that she was not allowed to give raises. Id. at 107:10-23.

Davis testified that when the store manager and co-manager were present in the store, they were supervising the assistant supervisors and were supervising the hourly associates. Davis Dep. at page 148: 9-17. With respect to the placement of merchandise, Davis testified that the home office, store manager, or co-manager directed where to place merchandise, and that placement was dictated by planograms. Id. at page 152:12-153:4. Even on the third shift, when Wal-Mart insists the Plaintiffs were “in charge” of the store, as set out above, upper management gave instructions of what was to be done, down to tasks such as scraping dirt from beneath shelves.

In Morgan, the Eleventh Circuit found that the factor of freedom from supervision weighed in favor of a finding of the primary duty being nonexempt work, because managers above the level of the store managers were responsible for enforcing detailed store operating policies, closely reviewed inventory, closely monitored the payroll, controlled employee hourly rates and pay raises, routinely sent to-do lists and emails with instructions to the managers, closely supervised displays, and closely supervised store operations.   Morgan, 551 F.3d at 1271. When viewed in a light most favorable to the non-movants, many of the same considerations present in Morgan, such as instructions from upper management as to tasks to perform, and pay rates and budget-controlled staffing by upper management, are present in this case as well. Therefore, the court concludes that this factor also weighs in Davis and Toliver’s favor.

4. Relative wages

As to the fourth primary duty factor, the relationship between employee’s salary and wages paid to other employees for the kind of nonexempt work performed by the employee, although Davis and Toliver have argued, correctly, that the court should account for the extra hours they worked in comparing salaries and wages, the court has not been pointed to evidence of the amount of hourly wages paid for the same nonexempt work duties. Therefore, the court cannot conclude that this factor weighs in favor of the Plaintiffs in this case.

Considering together the evidence of the relative importance of the management duties as compared with other types of duties, the amount of time spent performing management duties, the employee’s relative freedom from direct supervision, and the lack of evidence of relative wages, along with the fact that there is evidence that the Plaintiffs performed several types of managerial duties, it appears to the court there is a close question as to whether Davis and Toliver had primarily nonexempt duties. While the Morgan case is helpful in applying the analytical factors and considerations set forth in the C.F.R., the Morgan decision is also distinguishable to the extent that the evidence of managerial responsibilities of the plaintiffs in that case was somewhat limited. Bearing in mind that Wal-Mart has the burden of proof on its affirmative defense, and viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movants, however, the court concludes that there is sufficient evidence to create a question of fact as to whether the Plaintiffs’ primary duties were managerial. Having concluded that there are questions of fact which preclude judgment in Wal-Mart’s favor on the exemption requirement of primary duty, the court need not address the remaining requirements for application of the executive exemption.”

The Court then went on to hold that Plaintiffs may not be administratrively exempt either.  While, this case was limited to the facts of the two (2) ASM Plaintiffs here, this will be an interesting one to watch.

Cliok here Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to read the entire opinion.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affirmative Defenses, Exemptions

D.Md.: Defendant Not Entitled To Offset For Room and Board Or Meals, Due To Failure to Provide Documentation Of Costs To Plaintiff During Employment and Lack Of Agreement Regarding Same

Epps v. Way of Hope, Inc.

This case was before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff was employed by defendants as a “care provider” at defendants’ facility, where she prepared meals, cleaned, did laundry, and assisted facility residents with personal care, hygiene, and medication.  Her duties also included night care of residents, including changing sheets, monitoring residents walking the halls, and personal hygiene.  Plaintiff alleged that, while she worked seven days per week, without weekend breaks, and that “it was not uncommon for [her] to work far in excess of 40 hours per week.”  She alleges that defendants did not pay her for all hours worked and did not pay her minimum wage.  She further alleged that defendants did not direct her to record her hours.  Among other things, as discussed here, Defendant responded that they provided plaintiff with room and board, and contended that plaintiff was aware that her receipt of room and board would constitute a portion of her wages, such that the provision of same should constitute an offset to any wages found due and owing.  The Court rejected this argument, as discussed below.

Rejecting Defendant’s argument regarding offset, the Court stated:

“Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on two related issues: (1) whether defendants took “impermissible” deductions from plaintiff’s wages; and (2) whether the claimed deductions can offset or reduce the amount of wages owed to plaintiff.

Under the FLSA and Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL), an employer must compensate employees for all hours worked at a rate not less than the federal minimum wage, and at least one and one half the regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 in one workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1); MD.CODE ANN., LAB. & EMPL.¤ §§ 3-415(A), 3-420(A). WHILE “WAGES” MAY INCLUDE BOTH ACTUAL PAID WAGES AND “THE REASONABLE COST … TO THE EMPLOYER OF FURNISHING SUCH EMPLOYEE WITH BOARD, LODGING, OR OTHER FACILITIES, IF SUCH BOARD, LODGING, OR OTHER FACILITIES ARE CUSTOMARILY FURNISHED BY SUCH EMPLOYER TO HIS EMPLOYEE,” 29 U.S.C. § 203(B), THE EMPLOYER MUST MAINTAIN AND PRESERVE RECORDS SUBSTANTIATING THIS COST ON A WORKWEEK BASIS. 29 C.F.R. § 516.27(A)-(B); Md.Code. Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-503. FURTHERMORE, AN EMPLOYER MUST RECEIVE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE EMPLOYEE BEFORE COMPENSATING THE EMPLOYEE IN PART BY PROVIDING BOARD AND LODGING. MD. CODE ANN., LAB. & EMPL. § 3-503. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SUCH DOCUMENTATION IS FATAL TO AN EMPLOYER’S ATTEMPT TO COUNT ROOM AND BOARD AS WAGES PAID TO AN EMPLOYEE.   JONES V. WAY OF HOPE, INC., 2009 WL 3756843, CIV. NO. 07-1517-BEL *3 (D.MD. NOV. 6, 2009); MARROQUIN V. CANALES, 505 F.SUPP.2D 283, 292-93 (D.MD.2007).

Although defendants claim in their opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment that they “furnished records to show the cost of meals, lodging and other facilities supplied to the Plaintiff” (Paper No. 22, 5), it is undisputed that defendants did not provide plaintiff with documentation showing deductions from her wages for room and board during the course of her employment. (Paper No. 1, 5; Paper No. 4, 2; Paper No. 25, 4-5). It is also undisputed that plaintiff “never signed a document authorizing Defendants to take deductions for room and board from her wages.” (Paper No. 1, 5; Paper No. 4, 2). Defendants suggest that plaintiff’s awareness and acceptance of board and lodging entitled defendants to deduct the value of board and lodging from her pay. (Paper No. 22, 5-6). However, the FLSA’s protections are construed strictly, and defendants’ failure to obtain written authorization from plaintiff or to maintain documentation showing deductions from her wages for room and board precludes them from counting room and board within the wages paid to plaintiff. See, e.g., Marroquin, 505 F.Supp.2d. at 292-93 (collecting authority supporting the proposition that an employer is not entitled to offset wages by lodging or board when it fails to maintain and preserve requisite documentation); Jones, 2009 WL 3756843 at *3 (“The failure to document the amount, the failure to obtain [ ] written authorization from Jones, and the failure to include detailed documentation on the amount of room and board all preclude the Defendants from counting room and board within the wages paid to [Plaintiff].”).

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court hereby GRANTS partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the issue of “offsetting” of wages owed to plaintiff, and specifically rules that, as a matter of law, defendants cannot use room and board provided by them to plaintiff to offset the wages owed to plaintiff under the FLSA and MWHL because they failed to obtain plaintiff’s written authorization for such deductions and failed to maintain requisite documentation of deductions.”

Click here to read the entire opinion Epps v. Way of Hope, Inc.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affirmative Defenses, Damages

11th Cir.: Although § 255(a)’s Statute Of Limitations Is An Affirmative Defense That Must Be Specifically Pled, Defendants Sufficiently Did So With Language Referencing 2-3 Year Period In Their Pleadings

Following a jury verdict in favor of the Defendants, the Plaintiff appealed, based on a jury instruction the Court gave regarding the FLSA’s 2-3 statute of limitations.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Court erred in giving an instruction framing the applicable limitations period, because Defendants had failed to specifically plead statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.  However, construing Defendants’ pleadings in the case, as described below, to have pled such an affirmative defense, the Court affirmed the lower Court’s jury verdict, based on the instruction at issue.

The Eleventh Circuit explained:

“The district court instructed the jury as follows:

The Plaintiff is entitled to recover lost wages from the present time back to no more than two years before this lawsuit was filed on June 18, 2008, unless you find the employer either knew, or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the FLSA. If you find that the employer knew, or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the FLSA, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover lost wages from the present time back to no more than three years before this lawsuit was filed.

The jury answered “no” to the first question on the verdict form, concerning whether Appellees failed to pay Navarro overtime wages as required by law. Thereafter, Navarro filed this appeal.

On appeal, Navarro urges that the district court’s application of § 255(a)‘s limitation was improper because Appellees had waived the limitation by failing to properly plead it in their Answer. Appellees, on the other hand, urge that § 255(a) is not a traditional statute of limitations that must be raised as an affirmative defense. In the alternative, they claim that they adequately raised the limitation in their Answer and in the pretrial stipulations submitted to the district court.

The Court reviews a district court’s instructions to the jury for abuse of discretion. U.S. v. Lopez, 590 F.3d 1238, 1247-48 (11th Cir.2009). The Court reviews de novo a district court’s grant of a F.R.Civ.P. 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law. D’Angelo v. Sch. Bd., 497 F.3d 1203, 1208 (11th Cir.2007).

This Court has held that the § 255(a) statute of limitations is “an affirmative defense which must be specifically pled.” Day v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 122 F.3d 1012, 1015 (11th Cir.1997) (citing F.R.Civ.P. 8(c)).  In Day, the Court ruled that the defendant had waived the § 255(a) statute of limitations by failing to assert it until after the jury had rendered a verdict. As a result, the Court reversed the district court’s grant of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on the statute of limitations defense. Id. at 1015-16 The Day Court emphasized the fact that the defendant’s failure to raise the defense until after the jury rendered a verdict deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to contest the application of the limitation. Id. at 1015 (“[I]f [the defendant] had brought the limitations issue to the court during the … trial, [the plaintiff] could have offered evidence that the statute was tolled during some period of time, or have insisted that the jury instructions reflect the effect of the statute of limitations on any possible recovery by him.”). In finding a waiver, the Day Court relied on the Fifth Circuit’s earlier opinion in Pearce v. Wichita County, 590 F.2d 128, 134 (5th Cir.1979). The Pearce Court had addressed a situation almost identical to that in the Day case. In Pearce, the defendant had not raised the statute of limitations defense in its pleadings or in objection to the court’s jury instructions. Id. It had waited until after the jury verdict, finally bringing the limitations issue to the Court’s attention in a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Id. The Pearce Court held that such a delay constituted waiver of any objection to the limitations period that was applied. Id.

The case at hand is clearly distinguishable from the Day and Pearce cases, however, as Appellees raised § 255(a) several times before the case was submitted to the jury. First, Appellees stated in their Answer (under the heading “Affirmative Defenses”) that “[a]ny violation of the [FLSA] by Defendants was not willful, and was wholly unintentional. Defendants continuously acted in good faith with regard to the administration of its [sic] pay plan.” Next, more than a month before trial, the two-or-three-year limitation was referenced more than once in the parties’ Joint Pretrial Stipulation. Specifically, under the heading “Defendants’ Statement of the Case,” Appellees stated that “Defendants dispute … that Plaintiff was not paid for any overtime he may have worked during the last two or three years of his employment.” Also, in the Stipulation, the parties stated that the following fact was agreed upon and would not require proof at trial: “The corporate Defendant grossed in excess of $500,000.00 per year during the last three years of Plaintiff’s employment.” Finally, the parties and the court addressed this matter during trial, when, following the close of Navarro’s case, the Appellees based several motions for directed verdict on the three-year maximum limitations period. Navarro’s counsel, armed with case law, responded with the contention that the Appellees had not pled § 255(a) as an affirmative defense. The Court reviewed the proffered case, but ultimately ruled that § 255(a) would apply so that, at most, Navarro would recover for a three-year time period. Thus, this case stands in stark contrast to the Day and Pearce cases, where defendants had waived the defense by not raising it until after the jury had rendered a verdict.

The Court finds that Appellees timely raised the § 255(a) statute of limitations. Even if Appellees’ assertions in their Answer did not comply with a strict reading of F.R.Civ.P. 8(c), under this Court’s precedent, the limitation was still not waived. That is, although Rule 8(c) requires that a statute of limitations defense be raised as an affirmative defense, this Court has noted that “the purpose of Rule 8(c) is to give the opposing party notice of the affirmative defense and a chance to rebut it,” and, as a result, “if a plaintiff receives notice of an affirmative defense by some means other than the pleadings, ‘the defendant’s failure to comply with Rule 8(c) does not cause the plaintiff any prejudice.’ “ Grant v. Preferred Research, Inc., 885 F.2d 795, 797 (11th Cir.1989) (quoting Hassan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 842 F.2d 260, 263 (11th Cir.1988)). In Grant, the defendant raised the statute of limitations defense for the first time in a motion for summary judgment filed approximately one month before trial. Id. This court ruled that, because the plaintiff was “fully aware” that the defendant intended to rely on the defense, and because the plaintiff did not assert any prejudice from the lateness of the pleading, the defendant’s failure to comply with Rule 8(c) did not result in a waiver. Id. at 797-98.

As demonstrated above, in this case, Navarro was given ample notice of Appellees’ intent to rely on § 255(a) in several instances prior to trial. Moreover, when the issue was debated in light of the Appellees’ directed verdict motions, Navarro’s counsel made a thorough argument (including case citations) against the statute’s application. He never claimed during that argument that he had been surprised or somehow otherwise prejudiced by defense counsel’s reliance upon § 255(a) at trial. As a result, the district court did not err in limiting the jury’s consideration of unpaid overtime to the two-or three-year period prior to the filing of the complaint. Further, because it was uncontested that there was no evidence that Domingo or Rosa Santos exercised any active supervisory control over the company for the period three years prior to the filing of the complaint, the district court did not err in granting Appellees’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the individual liability of either of them. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Affirmative Defenses, Pleadings