18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 251 dismissed the donning and doffing claim. The Court opined that Plaintiff advanced sufficient allegations to show a plausible claim for relief as to the non-compensation for time spent walking to and from her assigned workstation, and denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss that claim. Finally, Defendant argued Plaintiff failed to state a claim alleging a "plausible minimum wage violation under federal or state law” because she did not plead that “she was paid less than the applicable minimum wage." Id . at *6. The Court disagreed. It reasoned that Plaintiff pled, with sufficient specificity, that Defendant failed to pay her, and others similarly-situated, "for all time worked and overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek" in violation of both the FLSA and the OMFWSA. Id . at *9. For these reasons, the Court declined to dismiss the minimum wage claim. Accordingly, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (xiv) FLSA Collective Actions Involving Government Employees Adams, et al. v. City Of Kansas City, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186519 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of fire fighters, filed suit in state court alleging that Defendant breached their contract and violated the FLSA by miscalculating overtime pay. The parties cross- moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether Defendant violated the FLSA’s overtime requirement. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, and denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant paid the firefighters according to the monthly wage scales contained in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). Regarding overtime, the parties agreed that pursuant to the CBA the firefighters received overtime pay at the rate of time-and-one- half for all hours actually worked in excess of 212 hours in any 28-day work period. Initially, Defendant paid a firefighter his or her base hourly rate, as calculated by Defendant for all hours worked during the preceding two- week pay period. Then, at the end of every other pay period, Defendant performed an FLSA “lookback” to determine if a firefighter worked more than 212 hours during the preceding 28-day period. Id . at *5. After Defendant performed its FLSA lookback, it paid a "premium rate" for hours worked in excess of 212 hours during the preceding 28-day period. Id . Most relevant to the pending motions was Defendant’s treatment of wage augments. Defendant paid wage augments for the first 99 hours that a firefighter worked in a two-week pay period, but did not pay wage augments for any hours, including overtime, that a firefighter worked over 99 hours in a two-week pay period. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant failed to use the regular rate and include wage augments when calculating their compensation for overtime hours worked. Defendant pointed to the CBA as the basis for its pay practices, which provided that the wage augments shall not be regarded as wages. First, the Court determined that the firefighters were not paid the "one times" the regular rate for overtime hours worked because Defendant did not pay wage augments for any time worked over 99 hours, including overtime hours worked, during a pay period. Id . at *7. Defendant argued that the firefighters were paid a salary, and the salary was intended to compensate the firefighters for working 49.5 hours per week. According to Defendant, if a firefighter chose to work beyond those 49.5 hours in a week, the firefighter was paid the base hourly rate. Defendant argued that firefighters were not paid the wage augment because the wage augment pay was only to be awarded in addition to the salary, not for hours worked beyond what the salary covers. In support, Defendant directed the Court’s attention to the CBA, which indicated that the wage augments were not to be regarded as wages. The Court concluded that this argument was without merit and ignored the well-settled precedent that FLSA rights cannot be abridged by contract or otherwise waived. For these reasons, the Court held that Defendant’s failure to pay the regular rate for hours worked in excess of 212 hours during a 28-day period violated the FLSA. Because Defendant failed to pay the regular rate for hours worked in excess of 212 hours during a 28-day period, the Court ruled that Defendant violated the FLSA. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether it violated the FLSA and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. Barajas, et al. v. United States, Case No. 16-1629 (Fed. Cl. July 8, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of current and former employees at the Federal Correctional Complex (“FCC”), filed a class and collective action alleging that the Defendant failed to pay the applicable night shift pay differential in violation of the FLSA and the Federal Employees Pay Act (“FEPA”). Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by res judicata due to settlement of previous wage & hour claims following a Union grievance. Plaintiffs asserted that the grievance settlement addressed off-the-clock labor violations and the claims in this case were not part of that previous resolution. The Court of Federal Claims found that the grievance settlement agreement only resolved claims for overtime compensation pursuant to the FLSA for time