Abshire v. Redland Energy Services, LLC
695 F.3d 792
8th Cir.2012Background
- Redland drills natural gas wells in Arkansas and employed 32 drill-rig operators on a Tue–Mon 7-day cycle with a separate 20-person non-rig staff on a traditional Mon–Fri schedule.
- May 2009, Redland reduced drill-rig crews from five to four and changed the designated workweek for those employees from Tue–Mon to Sun–Sat to align with other staff.
- A memo stated the overall workweek would not change, but overtime would be paid across two payroll periods, effectively reducing overtime hours counted in any single workweek.
- Eighteen months later, five employees filed a FLSA class/opt-in action asserting they were underpaid overtime because of the designation change.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Redland, holding no FLSA violation and that the change was not designed to evade overtime requirements.
- On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the interpretation of § 207(a)(1) and 29 C.F.R. § 778.105, arguing the change evinces evasion of overtime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does changing an existing workweek to reduce overtime violate § 207(a)(1)? | Redland’s change was designed to evade overtime pay. | Change is permissible if permanent and not designed to evade overtime. | Not a violation; lawful permanent designation change. |
| Does 29 C.F.R. § 778.105 permit a permanent workweek change if intended to be permanent and not evading overtime? | regulation prohibits evasion of overtime by changing weeks. | regulation allows permanent changes; evasion is not shown here. | Regulation permits such changes; evasion not shown. |
| Can evidence of administrative efficiency or “legitimate business purpose” defeat summary judgment on evasion claim? | Redland’s reasons are pretextual to avoid overtime. | Even if true, purposes are irrelevant so long as the change is permanent and compliant. | Reasons irrelevant; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1942) (defines workweek unit for overtime; 168 hours)
- Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., 323 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1944) (split-day plans invalid for evading overtime)
- Lamon v. City of Shawnee, 972 F.2d 1145 (10th Cir. 1992) (permissible to split workweeks; not evasion)
- Harned v. Atlas Powder Co., 192 S.W.2d 378 (Ky. 1946) (cites caution against evasion in overtime context)
- Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2000) (courts may not imply prohibitions not found in the Act)
- Kerbes v. Raceway Assocs., LLC, 961 N.E.2d 865 (Ill. App. 2011) (Illinois court upheld workweek modification not violating FLSA)