18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

272 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition or failed to pay him overtime. Plaintiff contended that Defendant’s paystubs did not show piece-rate compensation, but an hourly rate. Plaintiff further alleged that he consistently worked in excess of 40 hours per week and that Defendant knew he worked such hours, particularly during the holiday season. Id . at *12. The Court determined that the paystub belied Plaintiff’s contention that he should have been paid an hourly rate, as it clearly reflected piece-rate compensation. The Court ruled that Defendant informed Plaintiff that he would be paid through piece-rate compensation with overtime, and his paystub reflected this compensation structure. The Court further opined that since Plaintiff worked for Defendant for over two years, any confusion he may have about the role of hourly wage calculations to determine overtime in a piece-rate compensation structure did not suffice to state a claim under the FLSA. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Gelber v. Akal Sec., Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29554 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of Air Security Officers (“ASOs”), brought a collective action against Defendant for unpaid wages resulting from Defendant’s policy of automatically deducting meal periods from each shift. Plaintiffs alleged that mandatory hour-long meal deductions from their shifts on return flights lasting over 90 minutes after accompanying detainees on repatriation trips was a violation of the requirement to pay all overtime wages under the FLSA. The District Court ruled that the Defendant’s automatic deductions violated the FLSA. The District Court also found that Defendant “acted in good faith and not willfully.” Id. at *5. On appeal, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs had the burden to show that the meal breaks were not bona fide , but the Eleventh Circuit noted that because Defendant acknowledged that idle time spent on the return flights was “compensable travel time,” and because meal breaks were not distinguished from other compensable time during the return flights, it must compensate meal breaks, which also counted as idle time. Id. at *11. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the meal breaks could not be bona fide because the ASOs “were engaged in inactive duty” during the return flights and could not be completely relieved from duty as they waited to arrive home or to carry out additional tasks. Id. at *19. Plaintiffs also filed a cross-appeal arguing that the District Court wrongfully concluded that Defendant acted in good faith and did not willfully violate the FLSA, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to an award of liquidated damages. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court’s ruling based on testimony from Defendant’s outside counsel, who had previously advised Defendant that automatic meal break deductions were permissible by the FLSA. Further, the Eleventh Circuit held that because Defendant did not know that the conduct was prohibited by the FLSA it did not willfully violate the law. Harrington, et al. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185932 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of call center employees, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for unreported overtime work in violation of the FLSA. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding whether Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation to call center employees by virtue of its standard policies and procedures. Defendant had two relevant timekeeping policies, including: (i) a trade-time policy; and (ii) an exception timekeeping policy. Under the trade-time policy, if the time an employee worked beyond the scheduled shift was less than 10 minutes, the variance was treated as "Trade Time,” and the employee could trade out this time for any other workday that week. Id . at *4. Beyond trade time, employees were paid overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Under the exception timekeeping policy, employees were required to self-report any Trade Time and overtime worked. Id . at *4-5. Plaintiffs alleged that they consistently worked more than 40 hours a week, but either failed to report the Trade Time and overtime due to the time and inconvenience, or they were unable to report it during the assigned shift. Id . at *5. Plaintiffs contended that Defendant violated the FLSA by not paying them the appropriate overtime pay due them for this unreported call time. Since Defendant was able to view the time actually worked by employees in the timekeeping system, Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant could have paid them for all overtime hours work, and failed to do so. The Court ruled that as a matter of law, Plaintiffs could not establish Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge that they were not reporting Trade Time and overtime, thereby triggering its responsibility to pay them overtime for unreported call time. The Court therefore granted summary judgment to Defendant regarding whether it had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged overtime violations. Defendant also sought summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiffs’ unreported call time was de minimis . The Court denied Defendant’s motion as to the de minimis argument. The Court held that the undisputed facts demonstrated that the time Plaintiffs worked in excess of their scheduled working hours could be "precisely recorded for payroll purposes." Id . at *21. Therefore, the time in dispute was not "uncertain and indefinite" and Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiffs for such time was not "due to considerations justified by industrial realities."