Brooks v. Tire Discounters, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Guy v. Absopure Water Co.

    No. 20-12734 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2024)

    “[A]ll of the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation are taken into account in determining whether [an FLSA] violation was willful.” Brooks v. Tire Discounters, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-02269, 2018 WL 1243444, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 8, 2018) (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 551.104).

  2. Hendricks v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC

    694 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (S.D. Ohio 2023)   Cited 1 times

    "[C]ourts within the Sixth Circuit have generally found the willfulness standard met where there is evidence in the record that the employer actually knew that its conduct violated the FLSA or was placed on notice that its conduct might violate the statute, whether by prior Department of Labor investigations, by prior complaints or lawsuits brought by employees, or otherwise." Brooks v. Tire Discounters, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-02269, 2018 WL 1243444, at *8 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 8, 2018) (collecting cases). Other "[c]ourts across the country have found the following evidence sufficient to support an inference of willfulness: '(1) admissions that an employer knew its method of payment violated the FLSA prior to the accrual of the action; (2) continuation of a pay practice without further investigation after being put on notice that the practice violated the FLSA; (3) earlier violations of the FLSA that would put the employer on actual notice of the [r]equirements of the FLSA; (4) failure to keep accurate or complete records of employment; and (5) prior internal investigations which revealed similar violations.'

  3. Crowell v. M St. Entm't

    670 F. Supp. 3d 563 (M.D. Tenn. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    jury could find that the defendant's conduct is willful. See, e.g., Reich v. Bay, Inc., 23 F.3d 110, 117 (5th Cir. 1994) (upholding a district court's finding of willfulness where the employer was notified by a government representative that its payment practices violated the FLSA, and the employer continued those practices without further investigation); King v. Premier Fire Alarms & Integration Sys., Installation Div., Inc., No. 20-60064-CIV, 2021 WL 7540775, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2021) ("Courts have found willful violations where the evidence showed ... earlier violations of the FLSA that would put the employer on actual notice of the requirements of the FLSA[.]" (citations omitted)); Brooks v. Tire Discounters, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-02269, 2018 WL 1243444, at *8 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 8, 2018) (Trauger, J.) ("[C]ourts within the Sixth Circuit have generally found the willfulness standard met where there is evidence in the record that the employer actually knew that its conduct violated the FLSA or was placed on notice that its conduct might violate the statute, whether by prior Department of Labor investigations, by prior complaints or lawsuits brought by employees, or otherwise."

  4. Wiler v. Kent State Univ.

    637 F. Supp. 3d 480 (N.D. Ohio 2022)

    However, the question is whether these facts make out a claim for willfulness as a matter of law. Plaintiff relies on Brooks v. Tire Discounters, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-02269, 2018 WL 1243444, at *8 (M.D. Tenn. March 8, 2018), which ties willfulness to "evidence . . . that the employer . . . was placed on notice that its conduct might violate the statute . . . by prior complaints or lawsuits brought by employees." According to Plaintiff, that is what occurred here.

  5. Jones v. Trane U.S., Inc.

    NO. 3:19-0453 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 28, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Plaintiff has the burden of persuasion to show willfulness. Id. at 135; Fernandez v. Clean House, LLC, 883 F.3d 1296, 1299 (10th Cir. 2018); Brooks v. Tire Discounters, Inc., 2018 WL 1243444 at *7 (M.D.Tenn. Mar. 8, 2018) (Trauger, J.) (analyzing willfulness in context of FLSA claim). The Court finds that she has simply not met this burden and that her EPA claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

  6. Melton v. Lawrence

    No. 1:18-cv-167-SKL (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 31, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    The Department of Labor published a final rule effective December 1, 2016, which raised the $455 per week salary-level requirement for most exempt employees to $913 per week. See Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees, Dep't of Labor Wage and Hour Div., 81 Fed. Red. 32391-01, 2016 WL 2943519 (May 23, 2016); see also Brooks v. Tire Discounters, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-02269, 2018 WL 1243444, at *9 n.4 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 8, 2018) (citations omitted). A district court in Texas enjoined the Department of Labor from enforcing the new rules, and later found them invalid; it appears that court's decisions are pending on appeal in the Fifth Circuit.