938 F. Supp. 2d 19
D.D.C.2013Background
- Driscoll worked at GWU as Executive Coordinator (2010–2011) and was reclassified as non‑exempt in 2011, making him eligible for overtime going forward.
- GWU paid Driscoll for 24 overtime hours prior to reclassification at half his regular rate, totaling $232.98 after taxes.
- Driscoll contends he actually worked far more overtime and provided a spreadsheet showing substantial overtime hours, but GWU did not pay additional amounts.
- Driscoll asserted claims under FLSA, DCMWA, and DCWPCL and moved to certify a Rule 23 class for the DCWPCL claim; GWU moved for partial summary judgment on that claim.
- The court held that the DCMWA provides the exclusive remedy for overtime, dismissing the DCWPCL claim and denying class certification as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DCMWA is the exclusive remedy for overtime claims. | Driscoll argues DCWPCL may also apply. | GWU argues DCMWA exclusivity controls. | DCMWA is exclusive; DCWPCL claim barred. |
| Whether DCWPCL can be pursued based on identical facts to a DCMWA claim. | Driscoll seeks relief under both statutes. | Exclusivity and redundancy concerns prevent dual remedies for identical facts. | Not permitted; exclusive remedy applies. |
| Whether Driscoll’s Fourth Cause of Action should be dismissed. | Driscoll maintains DCWPCL viability. | DCMWA exclusivity precludes DCWPCL on same facts. | Dismissed; DCWPCL claim inappropriate. |
| Whether the Rule 23 class certification remains viable after dismissal. | Plaintiff seeks opt-out class under DCWPCL. | Class action not available under exclusive remedy. | Moot due to dismissal of DCWPCL claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bulova Watch Co. v. U.S., 365 U.S. 753 (1961) (specific statute controls over general)
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (specific statute controls over general)
- Smith v. Police & Firemen’s Ret. & Relief Bd., 460 A.2d 997 (D.C. 1983) (comprehensive enforcement scheme implies exclusive remedy)
- Hicks v. Ass’n of Am. Med. Colleges, 503 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2007) (DCMWA remedy limitations and class action characteristics)
- Thompson v. Linda and A, Inc., 779 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D.D.C. 2011) (claims under multiple wage statutes in some cases)
- Morales v. Landis Constr. Corp., 715 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D.D.C. 2010) (DCMWA vs. DCWPCL distinctions in overtime context)