18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

290 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Following discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Plaintiffs asserted that the District Court erred in determining: (i) that EMT/Paramedics were properly paid overtime compensation; and (ii) that Fire Medics were partially exempt from overtime pay because they had the responsibility to engage in fire suppression activities under 29 U.S.C. § 203(y). First, the Eighth Circuit explained that after a close examination of the record and the parties’ arguments, Defendant paid overtime compensation to EMT/Paramedics in compliance with the FLSA’s overtime provisions. Id . at 863. The Eighth Circuit determined that he EMT/Paramedics’ overtime pay was calculated using a mathematical formula set forth in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, which complied with the FLSA. The Eighth Circuit opined that the FLSA does not require employers to adhere to a particular formula for determining employees’ compensation so long as the formula ultimately used complies with the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements. Id . at 864. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit found no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant paid EMT/Paramedics the hourly rate calculated using the agreed-upon formula or that it paid overtime compensation at the correct rate. Id . The Eighth Circuit thus turned to whether Fire Medics were "employees in fire protection activities" and therefore partially exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provision. Id . at 866. The Eighth Circuit observed that the FLSA considers employees “in fire protection activities" to mean an employee, including a firefighter, paramedic, emergency medical technician, rescue worker, ambulance personnel, or hazardous materials workers, who: (i) is trained in fire suppression, has the legal authority and responsibility to engage in fire suppression, and is employed by a fire department of a municipality, county, fire district, or State; and (ii) is engaged in the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires or response to emergency situations where life, property, or the environment is at risk. Id . at 866-67. The parties disagreed as to whether Fire Medics had the "responsibility to engage in fire suppression." Id . at 867. The Eighth Circuit ruled that Defendant carried its burden to demonstrate that Fire Medics had the responsibility to engage in fire suppression, as they received advanced firefighter training and were fully cross-trained firefighter/paramedics. Id . at 868. Further, Fire Medics were expected to perform tasks that amounted to engaging in fire suppression, including using rescue ladders; providing incident command; deploying, connecting, and straightening fire hoses; and participating in building evacuation. Id . For these reasons, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgement. (xxix) Retaliation Claims In Wage & Hour Class Actions Sondesky, et al. v. Cherry Scaffolding, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27439 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2021). Plaintiff, a bookkeeper, filed a collective action alleging retaliation in violation of the FLSA and for defamation. A jury found in Plaintiff’s favor on all claims, and Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, a new trial. The District Court denied the motions. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Defendant argued on appeal that: (i) Plaintiff was an exempt employee under the FLSA and therefore her retaliation claims failed; and (ii) punitive damages were improperly granted. Plaintiff testified at trial that her manager agreed to allow her additional overtime hours during this conversation and that she proceeded to submit weekly timesheets reflecting her overtime hours. Thereafter, Defendant terminated Plaintiff for insubordination, and filed a lawsuit against her in small claims court, accusing her of stealing money for overtime and seeking to recover overtime compensation from Defendant. Plaintiff’s prior manager also contacted several of her former employers and accused her of stealing money from Defendant. Plaintiff thereafter filed this lawsuit in which she alleged that Defendant unlawfully retaliated against her by suing her in small claims court, that her manager unlawfully retaliated against her by accusing her of stealing money, and her manager unlawfully defamed Plaintiff when he sent an email to her former employer The jury awarded Plaintiff $1,000 in compensatory damages for her first retaliation claim, $1 in nominal damages for her second retaliation claim, and $100,000 in punitive damages for her defamation claim. Id . at *8. The Third Circuit remarked that Defendant forfeited the argument regarding Plaintiff’s exempt status because it was not raised before the District Court. As to Defendant’s other arguments, the Third Circuit found that the jury did not err in finding causal connection between Plaintiff’s protected activity and the small claims court action. Finally, the Third Circuit ruled that the punitive damages award was permissible because the jury determined that Defendant acted with actual malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights. For these reasons, the Third Circuit therefore affirmed the District Court’s ruling.