18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 279 undisputed facts established that Plaintiff received a bona fide 30-minute unpaid lunch break each day. The Court concluded that based on the Plaintiff’s testimony that it took approximately 10 to 15 minutes to don PPE and get to the 7:00 a.m. safety meeting, and the fact that he regularly left about 12 minutes early, Plaintiff did not work more than 40-hours per week. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (xxv) Preemption And Immunity Issues In FLSA Collective Actions Aldridge, et al. v. Mississippi Department Of Corrections, 990 F.3d 868 (5th Cir. 2021) . Plaintiffs, a group of correctional facility employees, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant failed to properly calculate and dispense wages in violation of the FLSA and state wage & hour laws. The District Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that Defendant was entitled to sovereign immunity on the FLSA claims and that the state law claims arose out of violations of the FLSA and were thus also preempted. On appeal, Plaintiffs contended that the District Court erred in finding that their state law claims were preempted. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The Fifth Circuit opined that the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution rendered federal law the "supreme law of the Land,” and the doctrine of federal preemption required that "any state law, however clearly within a State’s acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield." Id . at 874. The Fifth Circuit therefore ruled that Plaintiffs’ claims, to the extent they were predicated on violations of the FLSA, were preempted. The Fifth Circuit determined that the claims were preempted based on conflict preemption, which was present when: (i) "compliance with both state and federal law is impossible;" or (ii) state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Id . The Fifth Circuit explained that there was clearly a conflict here, as the purposes of the two laws overlapped with each other and thus the federal law must control. The Fifth Circuit observed that Congress’ intention to create exclusive remedies was clear in that the FLSA mandated that the commencement of an action by the U.S. Secretary of Labor terminated an employee’s own right of action. Id . at 875. The Fifth Circuit determined that while employees may sue under state law, they may not simultaneously bring claims under both state law and the FLSA for violations if state law did not independently provide for such a cause of action. Id . at 876. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that because Plaintiffs’ state law claims were based on violations of the FLSA, they were all preempted. For these reasons, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Hesketh, et al. v. Total Renal Care Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70518 (W.D. Wash. April 12, 2021). Plaintiff, an employee, filed a class action alleging that Defendant denied him the premium pay promised for emergency work situations as part of their employment agreement. Plaintiff brought claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Defendant filed a motion for judgement on the pleadings, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Defendant’s Teammate Policies handbook contained a Disaster Relief Policy that provided “for pay continuance during an emergency timeframe when a declared emergency or natural disaster prevents teammates from performing their regular duties." Id . at *3-4. Under the policy, if a designated facility was open during the emergency timeframe, employees working their scheduled hours would be paid "premium pay," or 1.5 times the base rate of pay. Id . at *4. Plaintiff alleged that after a national emergency was declared pursuant to the COVID-19 pandemic, he should have been paid premium pay under the terms of the policy. Defendant excluded the pandemic from the policy, stating that it "does not apply to the COVID-19 crisis" because it "applies only when teammates are unable to perform their regular duties." Id . As to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, the Court reasoned that the handbook explicitly stated that it did not intent to create a binding contract between the parties, and disavowed any contractual rights. Further, the express disavowal was repeated in the Disaster Relief Policy, specifically instructing that the policy "is not intended to constitute a contract of employment, either express or implied, [or] to give teammates any additional rights to continued employment [or] pay or benefits." Id . at *6. Accordingly, the Court opined that because the Teammate Policies handbook and the Disaster Relief Policy contained clear and conspicuous disclaimers that disavowed any legal obligations, Plaintiff failed to state a breach of contract claim sufficient to entitle him to relief. The Court explained that a promissory estoppel claim requires "the existence of a promise" that is "clear and definite." Id . at *15. The Court concluded that the statements in the handbook and policy did not constitute a clear and definite promise due to the provisions that made performance discretionary. The Court therefore granted Defendant’s motion as to the promissory estoppel claim as well. Finally, the Court reasoned that Plaintiff pled sufficient facts upon which it could draw the reasonable inference that denying premium pay under the