Skip to main content

Specificity is NOT Required in Pleading Claim For Overtime Pay


Jones v. Warren Unilube, Inc. - U.S. District Court - Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division


Facts:  Lisa Marie Jones ("Jones") worked for Warren Unilube, Inc. ("Warren") and was paid different hourly rates depending upon the shift she worked, such as $8/hour when she worked between 7 AM and 3:30 PM, $9/hour when she worked between 3:30 PM and 12 AM, and $10.20/hour when she worked between 12 AM and 3 AM.  However, Jones claimed she was improperly classified as an exempt employee and therefore was not compensated for overtime hours she worked.

Jones subsequently brought suit against Warren on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees and claimed she was not paid overtime wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Warren filed a motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds that Jones had not pled the existence of at least one specific workweek in which she worked over forty hours and was not paid overtime.

Holding:  (Note, this analysis only addresses the issue of specificity in pleadings brought under the FLSA).  The District Court began its analysis with a note that the FLSA requires employers to pay non-exempt employees one and a half times their regular pay for each hour worked in excess of forth hour each week.  The Court recognized that since no Fifth Circuit opinion addressed the issue in this case, it was necessary to look at how other district courts in the Fifth Circuit have previously ruled.  In particular, a pleading is sufficient where it "put[s] Defendant on notice as to the relevant date range, as well as the approximate number of hours for which Plaintiff claims [s]he was under-compensated[;]...the 'FLSA does not require more.'"

In this case, Jones stated she worked for Warren from March 2015 until the present date, that she worked an average of 60 to 70 hours per week during that time frame, and that she received "strai[gh]t time" rather than overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty.  Jones also stated that she is a non-exempt employee for purposes of the FLSA.  Based upon these pleadings, sufficient facts had been pled to establish a potential violation of the FLSA.

Judgment:  The U.S. District Court held that based upon precedent from other district courts in the Fifth Circuit, Jones had pled sufficient facts in her FLSA suit to put her employer on notice of the general time frame and approximate number of hours worked in which she claimed her employer should have paid her overtime wages.

The Takeaway:  I seldom come across cases this early in litigation that I want to highlight.  Oftentimes, cases at the district court level either have not addressed new issues or simply reaffirm prior caselaw which I do not think moves the needle too much.  With that being said, this case presented an interesting question that I thought readers would enjoy.  The question over whether a plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts to proceed with suit is a major issue...and can prove detrimental if the plaintiff has failed to do so.  In this instance, precedent from other district courts in the Fifth Circuit proved to be a real benefit to Jones.  Had this been a different circuit (with district courts reaching different conclusions), this case could have turned out much differently.  However, under the language of the FLSA and prior holdings on the issue, I think the Court reached the correct holding in this case.

 Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Ezra

Date:  September 1, 2016

Opinion:  https://casetext.com/case/jones-v-warren-unilube-inc

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more