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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more