647 F.Supp.3d 761
D.S.D.2022Background
- Hodges worked as a Research Scientist II at South Dakota School of Mines & Technology from May 22, 2019 to June 19, 2020; she alleges she was paid $27.50/hour, instructed to report 20 hours/week, but routinely worked more and on Oct 20–26, 2019 worked 54.5 hours with no overtime paid.
- Hodges filed suit Jan 28, 2022 asserting multiple federal and state claims, including an FLSA overtime claim and a state-wage retaliation claim under SDCL § 60-11-17.1; she later sought to substitute the South Dakota Board of Regents for the School of Mines on several claims.
- Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing, inter alia, that Hodges was a professionally exempt employee for 2019 (so no FLSA overtime) and that the School lacked capacity/be improperly served for certain state claims.
- The Court previously allowed amendment to add the Board of Regents for federal claims but denied amendment for SDCL Ch. 60-11 wage claims as untimely; the Court reserved judgment on the FLSA claim and ordered supplemental briefing on exempt status.
- Hodges conceded some state discrimination claims were untimely, contested the professional-exemption defense, and moved for reconsideration to add the Board as a defendant on her SDCL § 60-11-17.1 retaliation claim.
- The Court denied Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the FLSA claim (factual dispute whether Hodges was salaried) and granted Hodges’ motion for reconsideration to permit amendment to name the Board of Regents as defendant on the SDCL § 60-11-17.1 retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hodges' 2019 overtime claim fails as a matter of law because she was a professionally exempt employee | Hodges says she was paid hourly in 2019 and was instructed to report only 20 hours/week; identical paychecks reflected underreporting, not a guaranteed salary | School argues Hodges met the professional exemption requirements: primary duty of professional work and received a fixed salary (citing paychecks / contract) | Denied: factual dispute exists about whether Hodges was paid on a "salary basis" in 2019; Court will not resolve on 12(c) where pleadings permit reasonable contrary inferences |
| Whether the Court may consider Hodges’ employment contract as "embraced by the pleadings" on a Rule 12(c) motion | Hodges does not plead the contract’s terms and asserts hourly pay; references to the contract are not the complaint’s contents | School asks the Court to consider the contract (argues it is embraced by the complaint) | Denied: contract is not embraced or integral to the complaint, so it cannot be considered on the motion for judgment on the pleadings |
| Whether Hodges may amend to add the Board of Regents as a defendant to her SDCL § 60-11-17.1 retaliation claim | Hodges argues the retaliation claim accrued June 19, 2020 and service on the governor/AG on May 27, 2022 was within applicable limitations, so amendment should relate back / be allowed | School argued SDCL Ch. 60-11 claims were untimely against first-named defendant so amendment is futile | Granted: Court reconsidered, found prior denial was an oversight, and allowed amendment because the retaliation claim accrued June 19, 2020 and service on May 27, 2022 was timely under the limiting periods cited |
Key Cases Cited
- Wishnatsky v. Rovner, 433 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard for Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings)
- Ashley Cnty. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2009) (12(c) standard parallels 12(b)(6))
- Zean v. Fairview Health Servs., 858 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2017) (what documents are "embraced by the pleadings")
- Mills v. City of Grand Forks, 614 F.3d 495 (8th Cir. 2010) (pleadings, exhibits, and public records review on 12(c))
- Specht v. City of Sioux Falls, 639 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2011) (FLSA burden-shifting and remedial purpose)
- Coates v. Dassault Falcon Jet Corp., 961 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 2020) (FLSA exemptions and regulatory framework)
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134 (2018) (FLSA exemptions receive a fair, not narrowly constrained, interpretation)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010) (relation-back doctrine under Rule 15(c))