Summary
concluding that defendant's prior FLSA violations involving employees in substantially dissimilar positions were not relevant to show that defendant's FLSA violation, if any, in not paying overtime wages to engineers and engineering specialists was willful
Summary of this case from Chapman v. Bok Fin. Corp.Opinion
No. 97-4174-SAC
August 28, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the court on defendant's motion in limine. This motion seeks to bar plaintiffs from attempting to introduce evidence relating to previous investigations of the defendant by the United States Department of Labor ("DOL"). Plaintiffs oppose this motion.
The few facts which are presented by the parties relevant to this motion appear to be undisputed. In 1988, the DOL began an investigation of the defendant regarding defendant's non-payment of overtime wages to 173 plant security guards. The DOL conducted a separate investigation of the defendant in 1996 and or 1997 regarding defendant's non-payment of overtime wages to 89 maintenance planners. In both cases, FLSA violations were found, and back wages for unpaid overtime wages were assessed by the DOL and paid by the defendant. Defendant seeks to exclude all evidence of these DOL investigations because they are irrelevant to this lawsuit. Defendant contends that because the prior DOL investigations related to plant security guards or maintenance planners, any evidence relative to their improper classification is irrelevant to the classification of these plaintiffs. Defendant asserts, without challenge by plaintiffs, that plaintiffs are all engineers or engineering specialists and have different job duties, responsibilities, educational backgrounds and salaries than the security guards or maintenance planners who were the subject or the prior investigations.
Plaintiffs tacitly agree that the prior DOL investigations of the defendant are irrelevant to the issue whether defendant violated the FLSA by not paying overtime wages to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend instead that the prior investigations are relevant to the issue whether any violation was willful, and whether defendant's actions were in good faith as is necessary for its defense of a liquidated damages claim.
The court understands the distinction between the willfulness and good faith inquiries for purposes of the statute of limitations and liquidated damages defense, but combines the analysis of these issues for purposes of the instant motion.
The parties correctly state that a finding of willfulness requires a showing that defendant "knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited" by the FLSA. (Dk. 487, p. 4); (Dk. 490, p. 2-3). See Reich v. Monfort, Inc., 144 F.3d 1329, 1334 (10th Cir. 1998) (stating same standard).
The statute of limitations for a willful violation of the FLSA is three years, rather than two. 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).
Plaintiffs assert that the prior overtime investigations and violations served as notice "that should have put [defendant] on reasonable duty to investigate a potential liability." (Dk. 490, p. 6).
Plaintiffs rely upon Reich, in which the Tenth Circuit held that violations of the FLSA need not be established through litigation in order to establish that later violations are willful. There was no dispute in Reich, however, that the earlier claims, which had been settled, were similar in nature to those at issue. The case does not control decision of the issue presented here.
Plaintiffs additionally cite to Herman v. Palo Group Foster Home, Inc. 183 F.3d 468 (9th Cir. 1999), in support of their assertion that evidence of the prior investigations and findings is relevant to willfulness. There, willfulness was found where the employer had actual notice of the requirements of the Act, had been investigated for violations twice in the past, had paid unpaid overtime wages, had received explanations of what was required to comply with the Act, and assured the DOL that it would comply in the future. 183 F.3d at 474. The prior violations involved the same employees and/or job duties which were the subject of the subsequent investigation.
No such case is presented here, where plaintiffs are engineers or engineering specialists, and the prior DOL investigations were of maintenance planners and security guards. Plaintiffs do not contend that their job duties are substantially similar to those of maintenance planners or security guards, and have not shown any other reason why a DOL investigation or finding of violation as to the overtime pay due maintenance planners or security guards would put defendant on notice that its treatment of these plaintiffs was illegal.
The sole other case cited in support of plaintiffs' position is Dole v. Solid Waste Services, Inc., 733 F. Supp. 895 (E.D.Pa. 1989). In Dole, seven prior investigations of defendants found on more than one occasion the same type of violations as those involved in the case. 733 F. Supp. at 931. The court specifically examined problems which resulted from defendants' wage computation methods, such as lunch breaks and methods of payment. The finding of willfulness was based upon the fact that defendants were repeatedly informed of what was necessary to comply with the FLSA, but "made no serious attempt, much less a good faith attempt," to do so. 733 F. Supp. at 928.
Plaintiffs show no reason why Dole, which examines an employer's repeated violation in its methods of payment, relates to the present issue. There is no assertion in this case that defendant failed to comply with the prior DOL findings. The determination of whether overtime pay is due and owing is a fact-specific inquiry, focusing in large part upon one's job duties, including the exercise of discretion and independent judgment, which vary from position to position, and from person to person.
The court finds that the fact that defendant has previously been found to have erroneously classified various employees in other positions fails to show that its overtime policies regarding these employees are suspect. Plaintiffs have shown no similarity between their positions and those involved in the prior DOL investigations, as to the relevant factors which govern the determination of overtime pay. None of the cases cited by plaintiffs supports the proposition that defendant's prior violations of non-payment of overtime wages to employees in substantially dissimilar positions are somehow relevant to show that defendant's FLSA violation, if any, in not paying these plaintiffs overtime wages was willful or not in good faith.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion in limine is granted, and that plaintiffs shall not introduce in their case in chief any evidence concerning alleged overtime pay violations of the FLSA by the defendant relating to maintenance planners or security guards for the purpose of showing wilfulness or lack of good faith.