CAFFEY v. REDBACK ENERGY SERVICES, LLC
5:16-cv-00777
W.D. Tex.Nov 14, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (hourly-paid "hands"/operators employed by Redback Coil Tubing) allege Defendants failed to include non-discretionary bonuses in the regular-rate calculation for overtime, in violation of the FLSA.
- Plaintiffs seek conditional collective certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for all hourly hands/operators employed since August 1, 2013.
- Defendants opposed conditional certification, arguing (1) Plaintiffs did not clarify exempt/non-exempt status, (2) Plaintiffs failed to show bonuses should be included in the regular rate, (3) no evidence Oklahoma employees are similarly situated, and (4) Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption may apply to some operators.
- Court applied the Lusardi two-step approach for § 216(b) collective actions: a lenient notice-stage inquiry based on pleadings/affidavits, followed by a more searching factual inquiry after discovery.
- Court found Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged hourly (non-exempt) status and that non-discretionary bonuses must be included in the regular rate; however, Plaintiffs failed to make a preliminary factual showing that Oklahoma employees are similarly situated.
- Court granted conditional certification limited to Texas employees and ordered the parties to confer on the notice; issues about willful violations (2- vs. 3-year statute) reserved for dispositive motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditional certification is appropriate under § 216(b) | Plaintiffs: lenient notice-stage standard met; putative class similarly situated based on common pay practices | Defendants: plaintiffs didn’t show non-exempt status or similarity; challenge to notice | Granted in part: conditional certification allowed for Texas employees only |
| Whether named plaintiffs are non-exempt / similarly situated | Plaintiffs: were hourly employees (non-exempt) | Defendants: plaintiffs didn’t state exempt/non-exempt status | Court: plaintiffs’ hourly status establishes non-exempt character; argument fails |
| Whether non-discretionary bonuses must be included in regular-rate overtime calc. | Plaintiffs: Defendants omitted non-discretionary bonuses from regular rate | Defendants: Plaintiffs failed to explain why bonuses should be included | Court: Plaintiffs’ allegation adequate; non-discretionary bonuses must be considered when computing overtime |
| Applicability of Motor Carrier Act exemption | Plaintiffs: MCA exemption not shown to apply | Defendants: some operators may be MCA-exempt (interstate vehicle operation) | Court: speculative as to Texas employees; MCA argument does not defeat conditional certification for Texas class |
Key Cases Cited
- Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987) (adopting two-stage conditional certification approach)
- Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207 (5th Cir. 1995) (discussing notice-stage and opt-in procedure under § 216(b))
- Hipp v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2001) (emphasizing district court discretion in creating opt-in classes)
- Trezvant v. Fid. Employer Servs. Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D. Mass. 2006) (lenient preliminary showing required at notice stage)
- Johnson v. TGF Precision Haircutters, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 753 (S.D. Tex. 2004) (describing second-stage factual determination and possible decertification)