18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 227 absence of contrary evidence presented by Plaintiff, although Defendant’s program was not in compliance with overtime requirements, it was established in good faith and the reasonable belief that the administrative exemption applied. Accordingly, the Court denied an award of liquidated damages. The Court noted that the bill of costs requested an award of $3,690.17, but Plaintiff requested a total award of $7,708.50, including certain costs actually incurred but not taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Id . at *10. Defendant objected to approximately $800 of hotel expenses and $150 for a printer that could be used again for other matters. Accordingly, the Court removed the contested items and awarded Plaintiff the sum of $6,758.50 in costs. For the attorneys’ fee request, Plaintiff presented a lodestar of $164,099 for 437.93 hours billed for four timekeepers at hourly rates ranging from $550 to $150 per hour. Id . at *11. Defendant argued that the request included more than $19,000 for "unsuccessful motions and claims," that lead counsel’s hourly rate of $550 was excessive for the Denver market, and Plaintiff only achieved minimal success, as the initial disclosures sought $461,659.97, but the verdict was only $39,129. Based on Defendant’s objections, the Court found that the attorneys’ fee rates were excessive and reduced them accordingly. The Court also determined some of the entries should be eliminated from the fee award. The Court applied the modifications, which reduced the amount requested to $116,599.75. The Court held that the award was reasonable and thereby granted the revised award of attorneys’ fees. Finally, the Court found that prejudgment interest would compensate Plaintiff for the loss of use of overtime payments that should have been made. For these reasons, the Court thereby granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to alter the judgment. (iv) Class And Collective Actions Involving Volunteers Adams, et al. v. Palm Beach County, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136913 (S.D. Fla. July 22, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of unpaid volunteers at golf courses, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay them wages in violation of the FLSA and the Florida Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA”). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, which the Court granted. Plaintiffs were bag drop attendants, rangers, driving range attendants, and starter’s assistants, and although not paid wages, they were offered discounted rounds of golf and free golf balls to hit at the driving range. Defendant solicited for volunteers through the Parks & Recreation Department with a posting listing the requirements and that the position was on a volunteer basis. Defendant argued that the privilege to play golf at a reduced fee and to use the driving range for free was a reasonable benefit or nominal fee as described in the FLSA. The Court explained that the FLSA contains an exception for "an individual who volunteers to provide services for a public agency which is a State, a political subdivision of a State, (i) if the individual receives no compensation or is paid expenses, reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee to perform the services for which the individual volunteered; and (ii) such services are not the same type of services which the individual is employed to perform for such public agency.” Id . at *5. Plaintiffs asserted that the $91 for a round of golf that they saved by volunteering counted as wages such that they were actually employees, and therefore should receive the minimum wage. The Court disagreed. It determined that the discounted golf rounds were, at most, a reasonable benefit or nominal fee. The Court determined that Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim that Plaintiffs were "employees" under the FLSA based on their receipt of compensation. The Court also found that Plaintiffs’ state law minimum wage claims must be interpreted consistent with the FLSA. The Court therefore granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. (v) Class Communications In Wage & Hour Class Actions Dominguez, et al. v. Fajitas Mexican Restaurant Of Frankfort, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139669 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of restaurant employees, filed a collective and class action alleging various violations of the FLSA and the Illinois Wage Payment Act (“IWPA”). Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to improper contacts with their clients and the putative class after the lawsuit was filed. Plaintiffs alleged that the individual Defendants, Walter Narsolis and Amarie Narsolis, contacted Plaintiffs directly to settle this case without communicating with Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs contended that Defendants’ actions constituted intimidation and harassment. As a result, they sought an order to bar Defendants from contacting them. The Court determined that barring any and all contact by Defendants would be overly broad. Therefore the question would be whether Plaintiffs made a sufficiently strong showing that Defendants’ contacts with them regarding settlement crossed the line from legitimate party-to-party efforts to resolve the parties’ dispute over to impermissible harassment and intimidation. Id . at *5. The Court opined that Plaintiffs provided no details as to how they were contacted,