18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

242 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition affirmative defense that Defendants waived by failing to include the defense in their responsive pleadings. The Court noted that Defendants specifically raised 23 affirmative defenses in their answer to the DOL’s complaint, but they did not include the affirmative defense of exemptions under the FLSA. After the close of discovery, Defendants moved to amend their answer to raise the affirmative defense that certain employees were exempt from the FLSA under § 213, but the Court denied Defendants’ motion to amend their answer on the grounds of undue delay and unexcused delay. Because Defendants did not specifically raise the affirmative defense of exemptions, the Court found that their ability to assert them now depended on whether the DOL had sufficient notice. The Court pointed out that nowhere in Defendants’ answer, including its 23 pleaded affirmative defenses, did the words “exempt,” “non-exempt,” or “exemption” appear. Id. at *8. After a review of the record, the Court determined that material issues of fact remained as to whether the DOL was on notice of Defendants’ FLSA exemptions affirmative defense. Despite Defendants’ failure to plead, reference, or allude to the executive exemption as an affirmative defense in its answer, the Court observed that the DOL did allocate several of its not discovery requests to issues that related to a potential executive exemption. However, the Court concluded that whether the DOL was on notice of Defendants’ intent to argue the affirmative defense of executive exemption was a question for the jury. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. In sum, the Court granted the DOL’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. U.S. Department Of Labor v. Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1065973 (W.D. Penn. June 7, 2021). The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) filed enforcement actions alleging that Defendants, numerous nursing and personal care facilities, violated various provisions of the FLSA. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court denied the motions. Defendants’ facilities were staffed by hourly workers who provided direct care or coordination of services within the facilities, and their goals involved improving functionality and enabling patients to return to their prior level of function and residence. Id . at *4. The DOL asserted that the facilities’ employment records were inaccurate, and thousands of employees were undercompensated by Defendants’ practices of altering the pay of supervisory employees between hourly and salary depending on the number of hours they worked, failing to compensate employees for the hours they worked off-the-clock, failing to include non-discretionary bonuses and shift differentials in the regular rates of employees, failing to aggregate the hours some employees spent working at more than one facility, and paying employees at their regular rates instead of time-and-one-half for their overtime hours. Id . at *5. Defendants also argued that the facilities’ Chief Executive Office, Sam Halper, and Defendant CHMS Group, were not employers under the FLSA. The Court determined that there were genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment in favor of either party on the issues surrounding joint and several liability. Id . at *10. The Court opined that the parties submitted sufficient evidence from which a fact-finder could reasonably differ as to the extent of the involvement of Sam Halper and CHMS Group in the operations of the facilities. Consequently, the Court denied the motions for summary judgment as to the joint employer status of Sam Halper and CHMS Group. The Court further opined that as to the allegations of overtime and recordkeeping violations, the records was not clear as to whether Defendants operated as a single entity in order to grant summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court denied the parties’ motions for summary judgment. U.S. Department Of Labor v. Freeman Security Services, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134745 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2021). The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) filed an action alleging that Defendant failed to pay all minimum wages and overtime compensation due to employees in violation of the FLSA. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as an improper shotgun pleading and for a more definite statement. The Court denied the motion. Defendant argued that the complaint should be dismissed as a shotgun pleading because it failed to specify: (i) which provisions of the FLSA Defendant allegedly violated; (ii) the types of workers at issue in the litigation; and (iii) the temporal scope of the allegations. Id . at *4. The DOL contended that the complaint was not a shotgun pleading. The Court agreed with the DOL. It found that the complaint was sufficiently clear so as to provide Defendant with notice of the DOL’s claims. The Court noted that there was reference to the provisions of the FLSA allegedly violated, and in addition, the complaint contained an attachment with 62 allegedly affected employees. The Court opined that the complaint also included the temporal scope as it alleged the violated occurred starting at least by “August 2, 2018.” Id . at *6. Thus, the Court found that the DOL’s complaint was sufficient. For these reasons, the Court declined to dismiss the complaint as a shotgun pleading or to direct the DOL to provide a more definite statement.