Hernandez v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC
831 F.3d 940
8th Cir.2016Background
- Hernandez was a BATO tire builder (hourly, 12-hour shifts; alternating 36/48 weekly schedule) who obtained intermittent FMLA leave to care for his son; Human Resources calculated his FMLA allotment based on a 42-hour workweek (504 hours/year).
- Between Oct. 31, 2011 and July 15, 2012 Hernandez missed 54 shifts; many were excused as FMLA or sickness leave, but he exhausted his 504 hours on July 10, 2012.
- Hernandez missed two overtime shifts on July 11–12 for FMLA reasons after exhausting his allotment; BATO treated those as unexcused absences under its attendance/CBA disciplinary system, which can lead to termination.
- BATO deducted missed overtime hours from Hernandez’s FMLA entitlement but did not include his overtime when calculating his total annual FMLA allotment.
- District court: granted summary judgment to Hernandez on FMLA interference, concluding overtime was voluntary (so shouldn’t be deducted) and BATO’s deduction violated FMLA; awarded damages and attorneys’ fees (later reduced). BATO appealed; Hernandez cross-appealed fee issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether overtime was "voluntary" under 29 C.F.R. § 825.205(c) so missed overtime cannot be charged to FMLA entitlement | Hernandez: overtime is voluntary because employees sign up and overtime is not part of normal workweek | BATO: sign-up becomes mandatory once employee is selected and failure to appear is disciplined, so missed overtime may be charged | Court: overtime became mandatory upon selection and thus could be charged against FMLA entitlement |
| Whether BATO properly included overtime when calculating Hernandez’s total annual FMLA allotment | Hernandez: if overtime is mandatory it must be included in the calculation of yearly FMLA hours | BATO: overtime was not reliably predictable and therefore need not be included in annual allotment | Court: mandatory overtime must be included; BATO erred by deducting hours without factoring overtime into the leave allotment, so interference occurred |
| Whether the district court properly reduced Hernandez’s requested attorneys’ fees for limited success | Hernandez: reduction was excessive | BATO: larger reduction appropriate due to partial success | Court: reduction (district court’s approach) not an abuse of discretion; reduction for partial success appropriate |
| Whether computerized legal research (CLR) costs are recoverable as taxable costs/expenses | Hernandez: CLR is a standard, separately billed litigation expense and should be recoverable if prevailing practice and reasonableness shown | BATO: CLR costs should be excluded under Leftwich precedent | Court: remanded—CLR may be recoverable under contemporary practice (Jenkins/Ludlow); district court must determine if CLR fees are prevailing practice and reasonable in this community |
Key Cases Cited
- Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (8th Cir.) (summary judgment standard)
- Mann v. Frank, 7 F.3d 1365 (8th Cir.) (overtime sign-up can convert voluntary overtime into mandatory assignment)
- Beatty v. Custom-Pak, Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (S.D. Iowa) (elements for FMLA interference)
- Leftwich v. Harris-Stowe State College, 702 F.2d 686 (8th Cir.) (historic rule excluding CLR costs)
- Ludlow v. BNSF Ry. Co., 788 F.3d 794 (8th Cir.) (CLR costs may be recoverable where prevailing practice supports separate billing)
- Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (award of litigation expenses permissible where separately billed and prevailing practice supports recovery)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (limiting fee awards for partial success)