Buehlman v. IDE Pontiac, Inc.
345 F. Supp. 3d 305
W.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Plaintiff Jeff Buehlman worked as a partsman for Ide Pontiac, Inc. from 2002 to 2015; he said ~70% of his duties were ordering, stocking, organizing and dispensing parts for mechanics.
- Plaintiff sued under the FLSA and NYLL for unpaid overtime as a collective action; two opt-in plaintiffs joined.
- In Nov. 2016 the court (Telesca) held as a matter of law that the partsman exemption did not apply because plaintiff did not "actually work on vehicles," denying defendants summary judgment on overtime; later transfer and further briefing followed.
- The Supreme Court decided Encino Motorcars while this case was pending; defendants moved for reconsideration based on that intervening decision and for decertification of the collective.
- On reconsideration the court concluded Encino changed the governing law about the FLSA exemptions and granted defendants summary judgment on unpaid overtime; it also decertified the collective action and dismissed opt-in claims without prejudice, tolling the statute of limitations for 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of the FLSA "salesman, partsman, or mechanic" exemption | Buehlman: his duties did not constitute "servicing" because he did not actually repair vehicles | Ide: partsmen who obtain and supply parts are "integrally involved" in servicing and fall within the exemption | Court: Encino Motorcars requires a broader reading; partsman duties here (70% servicing-related) fall within the exemption; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether Encino Motorcars changed controlling law to warrant reconsideration | Buehlman: prior law-of-the-case holdings controlled; no basis to reopen | Ide: Encino rejected narrow-construction rule and explicitly included partsmen as integrally involved in servicing, an intervening controlling change | Court: Encino is an intervening Supreme Court decision; reconsideration permitted and granted |
| Final certification of the collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) | Buehlman: collective should be finally certified as similarly situated | Ide: individualized inquiries (different dealerships, duties) make collective treatment inappropriate | Court: Decertified the collective; opt-ins dismissed without prejudice due to disparate factual/employment settings |
| Tolling for opt-in plaintiffs after decertification | Buehlman: (implied) preserve opt-ins’ claims | Ide: no extensive tolling needed given small opt-in group | Court: tolled FLSA limitations for opt-ins for 30 days from entry of order |
Key Cases Cited
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134 (Sup. Ct.) (rejected narrow-construction rule for FLSA exemptions and held service-related employees integral to servicing can be exempt)
- McBeth v. Gabrielli Truck Sales, Ltd., 768 F. Supp. 2d 383 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (district court analysis of partsman exemption relied on in earlier decision)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (describes two-step collective certification procedure under § 216(b))
- Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of the Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 322 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2003) (law-of-the-case doctrine limits but does not bar reconsideration)
- Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1983) (articulates the law-of-the-case principle)