Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:02CV02463(RBW).
June 27, 2005
ORDER
Currently before the Court is the plaintiffs' Motion for Liquidated Damages ("Pl.'s Mot.") [D.E. #40]. As discussed below, the Court will grant the plaintiffs' motion and order the relief requested.
I. Background
The plaintiffs Lee Falica ("Falica"), Saba Gonzalez ("Gonzalez"), and Ernesto Lemus ("Lemus") request that this Court grant an award of liquidated damages. Pl.'s Mot. at 1. These plaintiffs initially brought this action to recover unpaid back wages pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as amended, under 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (2000) and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"), Md. Code Ann., Lab. Empl. § 3-501 et seq. (1999). Second Amended Complaint ("Compl.") at 1. As a result of the verdict reached by the jury, judgment was entered for the plaintiffs in the total amount of $324,143.36 on November 10, 2004. See Judgment on the Verdict. Specifically, Lee Falica was awarded $5,277.19, Saba Gonzalez was awarded $9,340.09, Ernesto Lemus was awarded $35,484.03, and Larry Sweeney was awarded $10,625.53 under the FLSA claim. See Verdict Form at 1, 3, 4, 6.
Presently before the Court is the plaintiffs' Motion for Liquidated Damages. The plaintiffs request that the Court award them liquidated damages on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, the FLSA claim, in the identical amount of the overtime pay awarded to each of them by the jury, $60,726.84. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Liquidated Damages ("Pl.'s Mem.") ¶ 6A. The defendants have not responded to the plaintiffs' motion.
II. Standard of Review
The FLSA provides that an employer in violation of the Act "shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages." 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (2000) (emphasis added). The award of liquidated damages is mandatory unless:
the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.29 U.S.C. § 260 (2000) (emphasis added). If both of these criteria are satisfied by the employer, the court may, in its discretion, reduce or refuse to award liquidated damages. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 740 F.2d 1071, 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Harris v. District of Columbia, 749 F. Supp. 301, 302 (D.D.C. 1990). Nonetheless, this Court has adopted a strong presumption in favor of awarding liquidated damages, also known as "double damages." Westfall v. District of Columbia, 30 Wage Hour Cas. (BNA) 4 (D.D.C. 1991) (citing Walton v. United Consumers Club, Inc., 786 F.2d 303, 310 (7th Cir. 1986). Therefore, "double damages are the norm, single damages the exception. . . ." Id. (quoting Walton, 786 F.2d at 310). Liquidated damages are intended to serve a compensatory, not a penal, purpose. Dove v. Coupe, 759 F.2d 167, 175 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Laffey, 740 F.2d at 1096. Their function is to "compensate employees for delay in receiving their lawful compensation." Donovan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 530 F. Supp. 894, 901 (D.D.C. 1981) (citation omitted).
As noted above, in order to meet its statutory burden under section 260 and avoid the payment of liquidated damages, the defendants must demonstrate (1) that the act giving rise to the FLSA violation was in good faith and (2) that the defendants had reasonable grounds to believe that its act was not a violation of the FLSA. D'Camera v. District of Columbia, 722 F. Supp. 799, 800 (D.D.C. 1989); Donovan, 530 F. Supp. at 901. The good faith prong of the test is subjective, while the reasonableness prong is objective. Harris, 749 F. Supp. at 302 (citing Laffey, 567 F.2d at 464). To satisfy the good faith requirement, the defendants must prove that they made "a genuine attempt to ascertain what the law requires," not simply demonstrate the absence of bad faith. Dove, 759 F.2d at 175-76. Therefore, to satisfy the good faith prong a defendant must have actually investigated potential liability under the FLSA. Harris, 749 F. Supp. at 302-303; Horan v. King County Div. of Emergency Med. Serv., 740 F. Supp. 1471, 1481 (W.D. Wash 1990). By contrast, the reasonableness component of the test requires employers to show that their belief that they were complying with the FLSA was objectively reasonable. D'Camera, 722 F. Supp. at 800.
III. Legal Analysis
In this case, the plaintiffs contend that the "[d]efendants herein utterly failed to demonstrate that they acted in good faith with respect to the determination that [the p]laintiffs were not entitled to overtime pay." Pl.'s Mem. at 2. The plaintiffs support this proposition with evidence that the defendants failed to make any investigation into the exempt or non-exempt status of the plaintiffs. Id. Moreover, the defendants acknowledged, in sworn interrogatory answers that there was no bona fide dispute justifying the overtime pay they withheld from the plaintiffs, and that the defendants' wrongful act was not excused by misguided advice from the United States Department of Labor. Id. Furthermore, the jury specifically found that the defendants' actions were not "motivated by a legitimate and good faith dispute" with any respect to any of the plaintiffs. See Verdict Form at 2-3, 5-7. In fact, the jury explicitly indicated regarding each plaintiff that none of the wages they were entitled to receive under the FLSA were excused by any legitimate and good faith dispute that the employer had with the plaintiffs. Id. Thus, as the defendants have not opposed the plaintiff's motion for liquidated damages and because the jury explicitly found that the defendants did not act in good faith, nor have reasonable grounds to believe that their actions were not a violation of the FLSA, this Court finds no reason to depart from the FLSA standard practice of awarding liquidated damages in cases of this nature. Id.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, this Court finds that the defendants have failed to meet their burden to avoid the payment of liquidated damages. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are awarded liquidated damages in the amount $60,726.84, as requested.SO ORDERED.