Unpaid Overtime Award to Oil Well Company Workers Reversed By Fifth Circuit
A jury verdict in favor of former employees of an oil well construction company claiming they were denied overtime has been thrown out by a federal…
May 18, 2018 at 02:25 PM
4 minute read
A jury verdict in favor of former employees of an oil well construction company claiming they were denied overtime has been thrown out by a federal appeals court.
The U.S. Court Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the jury's verdict and ruled in favor of defendant Crest Pumping Technologies. The court held that the federal magistrate judge overseeing the case improperly placed the burden of proof on the applicability of the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act on Crest.
According to Fifth Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes, who wrote the court's May 16 opinion, the lead plaintiffs of the putative class action, Scot Carley and Brandon Brown, were cementers for Crest who alleged they were not adequately compensated with overtime pay.
Crest argued cementers were exempt from overtime pay under the Motor Carriers Act, as cementers used Ford F-350 trucks during the course of their duties. During the litigation, the weight of such vehicles became an issue, and the plaintiffs, according to the court, had not refuted Crest's evidence that their vehicles had a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 11,500 pounds, and thus “no reasonable juror could conclude that plaintiffs were not subject to the MCA exemption.”
The argument in the case shifted from the gross weight of the vehicles to whom should bear the burden of proof as to whether the Corrections Act provided an exception to the MCA exemption. Ultimately the magistrate judge placed that burden on Crest.
“The MCA exemption to FLSA overtime requirements appears at 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1), which exempts employees subject to Secretary of Transportation standards from overtime compensation. The Supreme Court has reasoned that the purpose of the MCA exemption was primarily to ensure that operators of vehicles affecting highway safety were regulated by an entity with a greater understanding of the particular safety concerns,” Haynes explained.
She continued, “After June 6, 2008, the Corrections Act went into effect, designating a class of employees to which the MCA exemption does not apply. That class includes 'covered employees,' who are those employees: (1) who [are] employed by a motor carrier or motor private carrier . . . ; (2) whose work, in whole or in part, is defined— (A) as that of a driver, driver's helper, loader, or mechanic; and (B) as affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less in transportation on public highways in interstate or foreign commerce, . . . ; and (3) who perform[] duties on motor vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less.”
As it applies to this case, Haynes said the Corrections Act is unclear about the burden of proving whether the vehicles weigh 10,000 pounds or less, and there is a lack of precedent on the issue.
“The Corrections Act was codified under 29 U.S.C. § 207, which sets out FLSA standards that Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving lack of compliance by an employer. In other words, the Corrections Act defines a 'covered employee' in a statute subsection under which the plaintiff has the burden of proof for FLSA coverage,” Haynes said. “Although an employer more logically should bear the burden of proving an exemption from FLSA, here, the disputed provision is not codified as an exemption but, rather, under the provision defining when FLSA mandates overtime pay. This statutory structure indicates that the Corrections Act is not meant to be read in the same way as exclusionary language within a FLSA exemption.”
Adam W. Hansen of Apollo Law represents the plaintiffs. Jennifer Lynn Anderson of Jones Walker represents Crest. Neither responded to requests for comment.
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 AllRevisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
8 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readUber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
5 minute readInfant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
4 minute readTrending Stories
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