Figley v. W.S. Industrial
2011 Iowa App. LEXIS 338
| Iowa Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Figley worked for WSI from July 2006 to April 2008, initially hourly and then as a salaried foreman apprentice starting Aug 2007.
- Figley was terminated after a company van was used for bar-hopping and caused damage; WSI sought to recover about $45,000 via counterclaim for breach of contract and negligence.
- Figley filed a lawsuit alleging FLSA and IWPCA violations, including unpaid overtime and a discretionary bonus claim; he amended to add retaliation claim based on WSI’s counterclaim.
- WSI contended Figley’s overtime was exempt under FLSA and that the Fluctuating Work Week method could apply for calculating overtime; it also defended against liability on the counterclaim.
- At trial, the district court granted directed verdict for WSI on the discretionary bonus and retaliation claims, and the jury later found Figley not liable on the counterclaim and that Figley was exempt from overtime.
- Figley appeals, challenging the denials and the retaliation verdict, while WSI cross-appeals regarding issues tied to the overtime calculation and counterclaim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the counterclaim constitutes an adverse action | Figley: counterclaim was an adverse action against him for filing suit. | Figley: counterclaim must be baseless to be adverse; WSI contends counterclaim had basis in law and fact. | Counterclaim not an adverse action; not baseless; upheld directed verdict for WSI. |
| Whether the counterclaim was baseless | Figley: counterclaim was without merit and thus retaliatory. | WSI: counterclaim had a legal and factual basis (property damage by employee; care for equipment). | Counterclaim had a legal and factual basis; not baseless; no retaliation finding. |
| Whether the Fluctuating Work Week method was improperly submitted to the jury | Figley: jury should decide applicability of Fluctuating Work Week method as a matter of law. | WSI: moot since Figley was found exempt from overtime; jury decision controls. | Issue deemed moot; no further review given the jury’s exemption finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.C.V., 569 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 1997) (mootness and finality principles in appellate review)
- In re Estate of Lilienthal, 574 N.W.2d 349 (Iowa Ct.App.1997) (concepts of mootness in appellate procedure)
- Sprague v. Boston & Maine Corp., 769 F.2d 26 (1st Cir.1985) (employer’s common-law right to sue employees for property damage)
- Cavanaugh v. W. Md. Ry. Co., 729 F.2d 289 (4th Cir.1984) (employer liability for employee property damages)