18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

250 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Fifth Circuit, and to a lesser degree, cases from other circuits and district courts outside of the Tenth Circuit. Plaintiffs did not contest that their salary level, duties, or independent judgment and discretion meet the exemptions. Instead, Plaintiffs focused their argument on whether Defendant paid them on a salary basis and whether the reasonable relationship test applied and had been met. The Court rejected Plaintiffs argument that the guaranteed day rate of at least $1,000 did not satisfy the salary basis requirement because it was not calculated on a weekly or less frequent basis. The Court also disagreed with Plaintiffs’ position on the grounds that they were compensated on a salary basis because their day rate guaranteed them $1,000 for every day that they worked and thus they received more than the minimum of $455 per week for any week in which they performed any work. The Court found it important that if Plaintiffs worked for even one hour in a given week, they were guaranteed $1,000, which far exceeded the regulatory minimum of $455 per week. The Court also rejected Plaintiffs argument that Defendant could not show its day-rate plan satisfied the reasonable relationship requirement, as it concluded that the reasonable relationship requirement does not apply in the context of the highly compensated employee exemption. Therefore, because the Court found that Plaintiffs fell within the highly compensated employee exemption of the FLSA, they were not entitled to overtime compensation, and the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant. Vanegas, et al. v. Signet Builders, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151830 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 12, 2021). Plaintiff worked under a H2-A guest worker visa to build "livestock confinement structures" on farms. Plaintiff filed a collective action and contended that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis that Plaintiff was not entitled to overtime because he was exempt from the FLSA under the agricultural-work exemption. The Court agreed and granted Defendant’s motion. The Court explained that the agricultural-work exemption applies to two categories of workers, including: (i) workers directly engaged in "farming in all its branches;" and (ii) workers engaged in "any practices . . . performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations." Id . at *4-5. The parties agreed that the first prong did not apply to Plaintiff’s employment, and thus the question turned on whether the second prong applied. The parties agreed that Plaintiff worked "on a farm," so to determine whether he performed secondary agriculture, the Court framed the key issue as whether his work was incidental to or in conjunction with farming operations. Id . at *5. As Plaintiff’s main duty was building livestock confinement structures, the Court held that this job duty was in conjunction with "the raising of livestock," one of the core farming operations specified in § 203(f). Id. at *6. Plaintiff argued that his work met neither of the requirements because: (i) Defendant was a general construction company rather than a specialized agricultural construction company; and (ii) farmers did not typically build large livestock confinement structures themselves. Id . The Court, however, found that the work performed was “incidental to farming and was done on the farm,” which therefore met § 203(f)’s test for secondary agriculture without any additional requirements. Id . The Court further opined that since the work performed was incidental to farming, and not related to a separately organized activity from farming operations, it fell within the FLSA’s exemption for secondary agriculture. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (xiii) FLSA Collective Actions For Donning And Doffing Butler, et al. v. Adient US, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25557 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 10, 2021). Plaintiff, an hourly non-exempt manufacturing employee, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff contended that Defendant paid only for work performed between their scheduled start and stop times and did not pay for alleged work performed before or after such times, including: (i) changing into and out of personal protective equipment ("PPE"); (ii) gathering the tools and equipment necessary to perform their jobs; (iii) walking to and from assigned work areas on the manufacturing floor; or (iv) performing manufacturing work. Id . at *3. Defendant argued the pre-shift and post-shift activities of donning and doffing PPE and walking to and from an assigned workstation were excluded from compensation by the FLSA and the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). As an initial matter, the Court agreed with Plaintiff’s assessment that Defendant only raised arguments concerning two of Plaintiff’s four claims of uncompensated time; i.e. , those related to donning and doffing and walking to and from a workstation. Id . at *4. The Court considered the donning and doffing claim and found that consistent with Sixth Circuit precedent and the language of 29 U.S.C. § 203(o), Plaintiff’s donning and doffing claim, as pleaded, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Id. at *5. Accordingly, the Court