Guilbeau v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, 5:21-cv-00142

Plaintiffs, led by Trever Guilbeau, brought a collective action against Schlumberger Technology Corporation (STC) under the FLSA, alleging improper compensation structures for directional drillers.
Plaintiffs contend that their pay scheme consisted of a purported weekly salary that was illusory, plus day rates for actual work, potentially violating FLSA salary basis regulations.
The court previously denied summary judgment for STC, finding genuine questions of fact as to whether the day rates were additional compensation (§ 604(a)) or base pay for the normal workweek (§ 604(b)).
Defendant moved for reconsideration based on new Fifth Circuit case law (Venable and Gentry II), arguing these decisions now mandate judgment in its favor.
The court also considered objections to the Magistrate Judge’s nondispositive order regarding notice procedures for the collective action.
Procedurally, the case was stayed while appellate decisions in similar cases were resolved; the stay was lifted in this order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Venable and Gentry II require judgment for Defendant	Gentry II supports plaintiffs: pay structure fails salary basis; factual questions remain	Venable is dispositive: same pay structure upheld as valid salary, so summary judgment is mandatory	Venable is distinguishable; factual dispute persists; Gentry II is controlling; summary judgment denial stands
Whether the day rate was additional compensation or base pay	Day rates are base pay for normal duties, thus subject to § 604(b) reasonable relationship test	Day rates are job bonuses for work beyond normal week, qualifying as additional compensation under § 604(a)	Defendant has not shown as a matter of law that day rates are additional compensation; summary judgment denied
Whether collective action notice procedures were proper	Supports notice via mail, email, text, long opt-in, and reminders as within judicial discretion	Objects to timing and method of notice, arguing abuse of discretion and need to await appellate decisions	Magistrate Judge’s notice procedures were not an abuse of discretion; objections overruled
Whether reconsideration of certification is justified	Partial certification remains valid as the salary basis issue is still viable	Venable and Fifth Circuit case law undermine basis for collective/partial certification	Previous order on certification stands; no grounds for reconsideration

Helix Energy Sols. Grp., Inc. v. Hewitt, 598 U.S. 39 (U.S. 2023) (defines salary basis for FLSA exemptions, central to the dispute here)
Hewitt v. Helix Energy Sols. Grp., Inc., 15 F.4th 289 (5th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (articulates salary basis requirements under FLSA, affirmed by Supreme Court)
Gentry v. Hamilton-Ryker IT Sols., LLC, 102 F.4th 712 (5th Cir. 2024) (clarifies what constitutes a true weekly salary under § 602(a) and how extra compensation is treated by § 604(a)-(b))
Venable v. Smith International, Inc., 117 F.4th 295 (5th Cir. 2024) (examines similar compensation schemes but is found non-dispositive due to factual and procedural differences)