The document discusses two court cases that provided guidance favorable to employers on class action lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In one case, the court denied class action status due to variations in individual employees' complaints. In another case, the court ruled that an employer's settlement offer under Rule 68 can preclude a class action case proceeding.

1. Toll Free: 877.880.4477
Phone: 281.880.6525
www.hrp.net
FLSA Guidance from the Courts:
Good News for Employers

2. The Department of Labor (DOL) recently announced that in the last fiscal
year, it had "recovered" a quarter of a billion dollars of back wages due to
some 269,250 workers. In late December, the U.S. Senate confirmed the
appointment of David Weil to lead the DOL's Wage & Hour Division. This
appointment suggests the intense government scrutiny will not ease up
anytime soon. Weil had earlier supported an initiative by the DOL to sniff out
noncompliance to the Fair Labor Standards Act, in industries which use a lot
of independent contractors. In light of the government's stepped-up efforts,
it's even more important for employers to be on top of every detail. Here are
two examples where the employers prevailed... mostly.
www.hrp.net
»

3. Ma Laboratories, Inc
The verdict in one case made it a little tougher on employees (or their
attorneys) who are trying to have their complaints certified for class action
status. Class action lawsuits are more lucrative to the attorneys who
represent the group, than simply one-off cases on behalf of individual
employees. They can also be more costly for you, depending on the outcome.
www.hrp.net
This case, known as Lou et. al. v. Ma
Laboratories, Inc., was heard in a
federal district court in San Francisco.
It was built on a foundation laid by a
2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling
(Comcast Corp. v. Behrend) which held
that to be grouped as a class, plaintiffs
must prove a common liability (among
other things).

4. Several employees in the Ma Laboratories case complained they were
improperly denied compensation for "off the clock" work. Expert testimony
presented on behalf of the employees proposed that a sampling of
employees' time clock, telephone and e-mail records could be analyzed to
determine class status.
However, the judge was not satisfied by the statistical validity of such
sampling. Also, individual employees, when testifying in the case, presented
varying accounts of how they were treated. The court was troubled by these
"collective variations" in fact patterns. As a result, the court said the
variations "cause plaintiffs' off-the-clock claims to necessarily dissolve into
mini-trials." On that basis, the court denied the case class action status.
www.hrp.net
Lesson for employers: it may be advisable to collect individual employees'
assertions of mistreatment early in the process. This way, if there are any
significant variations among the complaints, they can be used to strengthen
the argument against class action status certification.

5. www.hrp.net
Lesson for employers: it may be advisable to collect individual employees'
assertions of mistreatment early in the process. This way, if there are any
significant variations among the complaints, they can be used to strengthen
the argument against class action status certification.

6. Tegrity Personnel Services, Inc.
Another recent case -- Silva v. Tegrity Personnel Services, Inc. -- was decided
in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal. This case addresses whether employers
using a "Rule 68 offer" can preempt a class action case.
www.hrp.net
Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Procedure allows a
defendant to make a settlement offer. This offer
must be made no later than two weeks before the
start date of the trial. The offer may cover the
plaintiff's legal expenses up to that point. The
plaintiff then has two weeks to accept or decline.
If the plaintiff declines the offer, pursues the case
and ultimately is awarded an amount less than
the defendant's offer, the plaintiff is then obliged
to pay for the defendant's legal costs incurred
after the offer was made. In addition, the plaintiff
in this scenario cannot ask the court to reimburse
his or her expenses incurred after rejecting the
defendant's settlement offer.

7. Here's what happened in this case:
www.hrp.net
»
Paula Silva filed a claim for unpaid overtime wages, on her own behalf and on
behalf of "similarly situated" coworkers. In a separate action she also claimed
her employer had retaliated against her for making an issue of the unpaid
wages. Another employee jumped on board that case the same day it was
filed. The defendant, Tegrity, made a Rule 68 offer to the two, but the
plaintiffs did not accept it. About a week later, Silva asked the court to certify
her unpaid overtime wages as a class action case, and several more
employees joined the case. They too were offered a settlement under Rule
68 and also rejected it.
Eventually Tegrity asked the court to throw the case out. This request was on
the grounds that the Rule 68 offers were expiring, therefore the court no
longer had the "subject matter expertise" authority to preside over the case.
That would have meant the court could only deal with plaintiffs on an
individual basis, not as a class. The decision of the court was fortified by
similar, earlier cases. When the dust settled, the ultimate ruling had several
implications for other cases.

8. Here's what happened in this case:
www.hrp.net
»
Paula Silva filed a claim for unpaid overtime wages, on her own behalf and on
behalf of "similarly situated" coworkers. In a separate action she also claimed her
employer had retaliated against her for making an issue of the unpaid wages.
Another employee jumped on board that case the same day it was filed. The
defendant, Tegrity, made a Rule 68 offer to the two, but the plaintiffs did not
accept it. About a week later, Silva asked the court to certify her unpaid overtime
wages as a class action case, and several more employees joined the case. They
too were offered a settlement under Rule 68 and also rejected it.

9. Eventually Tegrity asked the court to throw the case out. This request was on the
grounds that the Rule 68 offers were expiring, therefore the court no longer had
the "subject matter expertise" authority to preside over the case. That would have
meant the court could only deal with plaintiffs on an individual basis, not as a
class. The decision of the court was fortified by similar, earlier cases. When the
dust settled, the ultimate ruling had several implications for other cases.
www.hrp.net
Lessons for employers: First, the court shot down an earlier ruling which would
have allowed plaintiffs more time to pursue their claims after rejecting a
defendant's Rule 68 offer. Second, the court granted other courts within its
jurisdiction the authority to rule that a plaintiff's rejection of a Rule 68 offer blocks
a class action case under the FLSA. That is, assuming that the offer in question
addresses the damages that the plaintiff (and others who join in on the case)
could recover.
Also, the court rejected the contention of the employer that the employees'
claims were moot due to the expiration of the offer under Rule 68. That
conclusion was reached because Tegrity's offer failed to address Silva's related
retaliation claim. This underscores the importance of employers paying close
attention to all of their obligations under Rule 68.

10. 14550 Torrey Chase, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77014 USA
www.hrp.net
E-mail : info@hrp.net
Toll Free
Phone
Fax
:
:
:
877.880.4477
281.880.6525
281.866.9426