2nd Circuit Upholds Bed Bath & Beyond Win in Workers' Overtime Appeal
The ruling upheld a lower court's decision to toss the case on summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs' claims regarding Bed Bath & Beyond's use of a "fluctuating workweek" formula to compensate employees for overtime hours.
June 15, 2020 at 06:02 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Monday upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit from current and former employees of Bed Bath & Beyond who claimed that the home-goods retailer had failed to pay them the correct overtime rate.
The ruling, from a three-judge panel of the Manhattan-based federal appeals court, upheld a lower court's decision to toss the case on summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs' claims regarding Bed Bath & Beyond's use of a "fluctuating workweek" formula to compensate employees for overtime hours.
The Second Circuit held that six weeks' worth of the workers' pay stubs showing that they had received less than their normal wages was not enough to raise a genuine factual dispute in the case.
The panel's ruling also rejected claims that the fluctuating workweek method requires weekly schedules to alternate above and below a nonovertime limit of 40 hours per week and that employers were barred from forcing employees to work on holidays or previously scheduled days off on the promise that they would be able to take time at a later date.
The suit was filed under Section 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which caps nonexempt employees' nonovertime hours and requires employers to pay as overtime compensation at one and a half times their regular rates.
Congress has not codified the fluctuating workweek method in the FLSA, but the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the formula in a pair of 1942 decisions. Under the fluctuating workweek method, an employer may, under certain conditions, pay an employee who works fluctuating hours a fixed salary for all hours worked, plus an additional half-time for work exceeding 40 hours per week, though that number decreases with the amount of hours worked.
The Second Circuit panel said Monday that the plaintiffs, a group of department managers at Bed Bath & Beyond stores, had pointed to just six instances where the company had failed to pay them their fixed and guaranteed weekly wages as a result of its policy for paying overtime.
Two of those payroll errors, the panel said, were corrected before the workers' lawsuit in October 2016, while two other minor infractions were "not cause for alarm." The two remaining discrepancies, involving unpaid wages for vacation and family and medical leave, required "more attention," but still did not establish a genuine dispute of material fact on summary judgment.
"With a different record, the absence of weeks with fewer than 40 hours of actual work and credited paid time off in which full pay was given might well weigh heavily in our analysis," Second Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi wrote in a 34-page opinion on behalf of the panel.
"Here, however, we view as salient that the two more puzzling instances of alleged underpayment bear no connection to each other or to the other four disputed weeks," he said.
Calabresi was joined in the ruling by Judges Barrington D. Parker Jr. and Debra Ann Livingston.
James Murphy, who represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement that his clients were still in the process of "evaluating their options in this matter."
"We hope that the Legislature recognizes that this loophole encourages employers to exploit workers by paying ever-decreasing rates for overtime work, and works to rectify this injustice going forward," said Murphy, a partner with Virginia & Ambinder in Manhattan.
Jonathan Sulds, a Greenberg Traurig partner who represents Bed Bath & Beyond, declined to comment on Monday, citing the company's policy against publicly discussing pending litigation.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: After a 74-Day Trial, Shook Fends Off Claims From Artist’s Heirs Against UMB Bank
An ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
‘It's Your Funeral’: Avoiding Doing Damage to Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250