Skip to main content

Chipotle's Motion for Contempt Granted in Department of Labor Overtime Rule Case


Readers might recall that a few years ago, then President Barack Obama's Department of Labor proposed an overtime rule would have updated the threshold for overtime eligibility, from $23,660.00 to $47,476.00.  However, before the new overtime rule could be implemented, it was blocked in court when a nationwide injunction was issued that prevented the rule from going into effect.  As a result, no employees actually realized any change in their overtime pay, since the proposed overtime rule never became law.

Last summer, a lawsuit was filed against Chipotle by a former worker that alleged she was not paid in accordance with the new overtime regulation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.  Attorneys for the former employee argued that the proposed overtime rule was actually in effect and the injunction only limited the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing the regulation (but not enforcement of the overtime rule itself, presumably by a litigant in court).  The argument subsequently followed that as a result, the effective date of the regulation was not impacted and the injunction did not prevent the overtime rule from going into effect.  Thus, the former employee and her attorneys argued their case should be allowed to proceed ahead.

Chipotle proceeded to file a Motion for Contempt and argued that the lawsuit should not be allowed to proceed as the former worker and her attorneys "intentionally disregarded" the injunction and instead improperly chose to file a lawsuit to enforce the overtime rule that never went into effect.  In its Motion, Chipotle asked the Court to enforce the injunction, prohibit the former worker and her attorneys from engaging in further litigation in regard to the proposed overtime rule, and award Chipotle its fees and costs for bringing the Motion.

Late last month, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division issued its decision on Chipotle's Motion for Contempt.  In a rather lengthy opinion, the Court held that the former employee and her attorneys "should have known" they were pursuing a claim that "was unwarranted in fact or law."  Further, the Court pointed out that the former employee and her attorneys could not offer any precedent for the argument that the Department of Labor was prohibited from enforcement of the final rule (because of the injunction), but other litigants could pursue enforcement of the rule.  As a result, the allegations raised in regard to alleged violations of the FLSA and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law were to be withdrawn and Chipotle was subsequently awarded its costs and fees in pursuing its Motion for Contempt.

Had the former employee and her attorneys been able to locate some support (from this circuit or another) to support the argument that they could pursue the claim (even though the Department of Labor was blocked from doing so), that might have been enough to defeat the Motion for Contempt.  However, the lack of precedential support and an inability to show that they did not "intentionally disregard" the injunction is what ultimately doomed them in this instance.  Practitioners take note, while novel legal arguments are not discouraged, if there is no sound basis for bringing an allegation/defense (especially in light of a nationwide injunction), be prepared to be confronted with a similar motion for contempt proceeding.


For additional information:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/NevadaDOL031918.pdf

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