Overtime Attorney Blog

In a decision penned by Priscilla Owen, the Fifth Circuit held that an employee's complaints to her employer regarding wage violations are insufficient to raise a fact question as to whether the employer knew or recklessly disregarded the employee's statutory rights.

Ikossi-Anastasiou v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University is an Equal Pay Act claim. The Equal Pay Act is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under the Equal Pay Act, an employer must pay male and female employees the same wages for the same job.

The FLSA has a two or three-year statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is expanded to three years if the employee proves that the alleged violation was "willful." Willfulness can be shown if the employee proves that the employer "either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute." McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988).

Ikossi-Anastasiou attempted to show that the employer willfully violated her rights because she had previously complained that she was dissatisfied with her salary and that she wanted her salary to be adjusted upward to the level of her male colleagues. Owen writes for the court, "however, the facts that Ikossi was paid less than many of her male colleagues and that LSU knew she was dissatisfied with this difference are not enough to raise a fact question as to whether LSU knew or recklessly disregarded that its pay scale was prohibited by the FLSA. Ikossi has not provided evidence that LSU actually knew that the pay structure violated the FLSA, or that LSU ignored or failed to investigate Ikossi's complaints. Without more evidence, Ikossi's allegations of willfulness cannot survive the summary judgment stage."

Finding that Ikossi's claims were outside the two year statute of limitations, the court barred her EPA claims.

Continue reading "Fifth Circuit: Employer's Knowledge of Complaints of Wage Violations Alone is Insufficient to Establish Willfulness" »

Ramirez was a domestic worker from El Salvador hired by a New York family, the Rifkins. Ramirez asserted violations of the FLSA and New York overtime and minimum wage provisions. Like many employers of domestics, the Rifkins kept no time records, did not pay taxes for Ramierez's work, and did not comply with minimum wage and overtime posting requirements.

The Rifkins sought summary judgment on statute of limitations. The Court denied summary judgment on statute of limitations.

The Court noted that for the federal three year statute to apply, defendants' violation must be willful. The Court finds defendants' conduct could be willful for four reasons: (1) defendants did not maintain records, (2) defendants did not withhold taxes, (3) defendants did not provide w-2 forms, and (4) defendants claimed plaintiff was an independent contractor but did not issue 1099.

The Court denied summary judgment against plaintiff's claim of equitable tolling. The Court notes that whether failure to post DOL notices gives rise to equitable tolling is an open question. The Court finds that a fact question has been presented because plaintiff has demonstrated conduct by defendants that could reflect a conscious attempt to conceal from plaintiff both her rights under the law, as well as the factual information regarding her hours that would allow her to understand that she had a legal claim.

Regarding New York state claims, the Court notes the applicable statute of limitations is six years. The Court finds that arguments for equitable tolling would apply equally to state or federal claims.

The case is Ramirez v. Rifkin, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2008 WL 2559376 (E.D.N.Y. June 23, 2008).

From January 1, 2002 to August 23, 2003, certain INS workers were not paid overtime where they were trained for six straight days. At issue before the Court of Federal Claims were cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of willfulness (which allows a 3-year rather than 2-year statute of limitations) and equitable tolling (which would extend the statute of limitations deadline).

The Court found that willfulness is heavily fact driven and requires a state of mind determination. The Court found that genuine factual disputes exist regarding willfulness and denied both parties' motions for summary judgment.

The Court declined to grant equitable tolling. The Court noted that a concern that judicial tolling in a federal government case could conflict with Congress' legislative power to waive sovereign immunity and create causes of action against the government. However, most authority undermines this proposition. The Court ultimately finds that there is insufficient evidence to show that potential plaintiffs were induced or tricked into not filing timely claims.

The full citation is: Moreno v. United States, 82 Fed.Cl. 387 (Fed.Cl. 2008).

Cranney v. Carriage Services, Inc. is an overtime class action with over eighty opt in plaintiffs and five hundred declarations supporting plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants in the case sought and received a forty-five day extension to file their answer. In response, plaintiffs seek an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations by forty five days. To put this in perspective, such an extension would add between 3,600 and 22,500 man-days of overtime into play (80 x45 and 500 x 45 respectively). The math shows the power of aggregating claims. Naturally, defendants are opposed to such tolling.

The Court sides with defendants. First, the Court finds that plaintiffs failed to show that defendants engaged in wrongful conduct that would prevent plaintiffs from asserting their claims if the statute of limitations is not equitably tolled. The Court simply does not believe that a forty-five day extension is out of the ordinary.

Second, the Court finds that plaintiffs did not demonstrate that any extraordinary circumstances beyond plaintiffs’ control made it impossible to file the claims on time. In particular, the Court finds that plaintiffs themselves delayed filing five months.

This case has two lessons for plaintiffs. First, vigorously oppose extensions and delays. Second, make sure that plaintiffs’ own house is in order and avoid delays of plaintiffs’ own creation.

The full citation is: Cranney v. Carriage Services, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2008 WL 820140, (D.Nev. Mar. 20, 2008).