Jose Escribano v. Travis County, Texas, 947 F.3d 265

Background

Six Travis County Sheriff’s Office detectives sued for unpaid overtime under the FLSA; County asserted executive and highly-compensated-employee exemptions.
The jury found each detective was not paid on a "salary basis," which if upheld would defeat the County’s asserted exemptions; jury then awarded damages to detectives.
The County filed a Rule 50(b) renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law arguing no reasonable jury could find the detectives weren’t paid on a salary basis; the district court granted JMOL on that issue and ordered a new trial on remaining exemption elements.
The detectives repeatedly declined to pursue the new trial, sought reinstatement of the original verdict, and the district court entered final judgment against them; prolonged posttrial procedural disputes followed.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit held it had jurisdiction (appeal from the final judgment) and ruled Rule 50(b)’s timing is a claim-processing rule, not jurisdictional; therefore the detectives forfeited any timeliness objection.
On the merits the court applied the post-Auer salary-basis regulation (requiring an actual practice of improper deductions) and affirmed the district court’s JMOL that the detectives were paid on a salary basis because no such practice existed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether detectives were paid on a "salary basis" (JMOL)	Jury found not salary; detectives argued verdict should stand	County argued no reasonable jury could find salary-basis lacking and renewed JMOL	Court affirmed JMOL for County: detectives were paid on a salary basis as a matter of law
Whether County’s Rule 50(b) motion was untimely and jurisdictionally defective	Detectives: Rule 50(b) deadline is jurisdictional; County’s motion was late so court lacked authority	County: Rule 50(b) timing is not jurisdictional and motion was timely	Rule 50(b) timing is a claim-processing rule (not jurisdictional); detectives forfeited timeliness objection
Whether the appeal was timely / whether appellate court had jurisdiction	County: argued appeal was untimely because earlier posttrial rulings started appeal clock	Detectives: appealed within 30 days of final judgment and appeal is proper after final disposition	Appeal was timely; order granting a new trial is not immediately appealable, so final judgment triggered the appeal period
Whether County had a policy/practice of improper salary deductions under DOL regs	Detectives: County’s policies and practice demonstrated a significant likelihood of improper deductions, negating salary basis	County: there were no actual deductions and policies were vague; DOL regs require an actual practice of improper deductions	Under post-Auer DOL rule requiring an actual practice of improper deductions, no evidence of such practice existed; salary-basis requirement satisfied

Key Cases Cited

Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (interpreting "subject to reduction" standard under DOL regs and discussing practice-or-policy test)
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (statutory vs. rule-based deadlines and jurisdictional limits)
Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (timing rules in procedural rules are generally claim-processing, not jurisdictional)
Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (1994) (appeal normally lies only after final judgment; single final judgment may raise earlier errors)
Flowers v. S. Reg’l Physician Servs. Inc., 247 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2001) (standard for JMOL review)
U.S. Leather, Inc. v. H & W P’ship, 60 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 1995) (older Fifth Circuit precedent treating post-trial timing as jurisdictional)
Evers v. Equifax, Inc., 650 F.2d 793 (5th Cir. 1981) (order granting new trial is not immediately appealable)