Edward Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC
815 F.3d 1000
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- FTS USA (with parent UniTek) employed ~296 piece-rate cable technicians across multiple states; time was recorded on handwritten timesheets transmitted to UniTek payroll.
- Technicians alleged a corporate-originated, company-wide "time-shaving" practice: managers instructed or pressured techs to underreport hours (start/stop, lunches) or managers altered timesheets, reducing reported overtime.
- Plaintiffs filed an FLSA § 216(b) collective action; the district court conditionally and ultimately certified the collective and limited discovery to a 50-person representative sample (40 plaintiff-chosen, 10 defense-chosen).
- Trial proceeded on representative proof: 17 technician plaintiffs testified (plus managers/executives); jury found liability for the entire collective and produced average unrecorded hours for testifying techs; the district court applied an estimated-average approach and awarded damages using a 1.5 multiplier.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed certification, the use of representative testimony, and the estimated-average damages method, but reversed the damages calculation because the district court failed to (1) recalculate piece-rate hourly rates to reflect unrecorded hours and (2) apply the correct piece-rate overtime multiplier (.5), remanding for recalculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collective action certification under FLSA § 216(b) was proper | Plaintiffs: technicians share common duties, pay system, timekeeping, and a company-wide time-shaving policy originating at corporate, so they are "similarly situated." | FTS/UniTek: differences in locations, supervisors, motives, and methods make claims individualized and require decertification. | Affirmed: under O'Brien factors plaintiffs were similarly situated; representative proof and trial plan (agreed sample) made collective adjudication proper. |
| Whether representative testimony sufficed to prove liability for non-testifying opt-ins | Plaintiffs: representative technicians (geographic spread, same duties/pay/timekeeping) plus documentary evidence prove a common policy and permit inference for non-testifiers. | Defendants: representative sample was unrepresentative; liability varied by office/method, so representative testimony cannot sustain class-wide liability. | Affirmed: courts may rely on representative testimony when supported by other evidence; jury verdict on representatives could be inferred to apply to the collective. |
| Whether Mt. Clemens/estimated-average approach can be used for damages | Plaintiffs: employer failed to keep adequate records; Mt. Clemens permits relaxed burden and estimated-average damages for non-testifiers. | Defendants: estimated-average is imprecise and may over/under-compensate; damages require individual proof. | Affirmed use of estimated-average approach as permissible under Mt. Clemens when employer records are inadequate and defendants had chance to rebut. |
| Whether the district court’s damages computation and Seventh Amendment concerns were proper | Plaintiffs: court’s arithmetic applying jury-found averages to class was appropriate; defendants waived jury on damages. | Defendants: court impermissibly took damages for non-testifiers from judge (not jury), and misapplied piece-rate law (failed to recalculate hourly rate and wrongly used 1.5 multiplier), violating Seventh Amendment and FLSA rules. | Court reversed on damages calculation: district court must (1) recalculate regular hourly rates to account for unrecorded hours (piece-rate recalculation) and (2) use the correct overtime multiplier (.5). Remanded for recalculation; no reversal of liability or certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (framework for FLSA "similarly situated" analysis and use of representative proof)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) (employee burden and relaxed proof for amount of uncompensated work; estimated-average approach)
- Herman v. Palo Group Foster Home, Inc., 183 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 1999) (application of Mt. Clemens burden shifting where employer failed to keep adequate records)
- U.S. Dep't of Labor v. Cole Enters., Inc., 62 F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 1995) (approving representative testimony and estimated averages for back wages)
- Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA LLC, 705 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2013) (contrasting approach: decertification where multiple, non-uniform theories made representative proof unreliable)
- Wallace v. FedEx Corp., 764 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2014) (Seventh Amendment principles on judge adjustment of jury awards and permissible judicial calculations)