Leonard Moore v. Appliance Direct,Inc.
708 F.3d 1233
11th Cir.2013Background
- Plaintiffs sued for retaliation under FLSA section 215(a)(3) against Pak after an overtime suit against Appliance Direct; cross-appeals followed.
- Before this action, plaintiffs asserted overtime violations under 29 U.S.C. § 207 against Appliance Direct and Pak; Appliance Direct outsourced driver positions to independent contractors.
- Plaintiffs claim they were not offered independent subcontract opportunities while other non-plaintiffs were; their truckdriver positions were terminated as jobs were outsourced.
- The retaliation case proceeded against Pak after bankruptcy stay for Appliance Direct; trial produced a jury verdict awarding $30,000 each in economic damages.
- Pak argued (i) not an FLSA employer, (ii) insufficient proof of damages and causation; district court denied these motions; plaintiffs sought liquidated damages but district court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Pak an FLSA employer? | Plaintiffs contend Pak had sufficient control to be an employer. | Pak argues he was not an employer under FLSA. | Yes; substantial evidence supported employer status. |
| Were damages proven sufficiently for each plaintiff? | Plaintiffs show Caneva’s pay-based framework proves damages amount. | Pak argues damages are speculative and uncertain. | Evidence supported $30,000 per plaintiff for economic damages. |
| Are liquidated damages mandatory or discretionary in retaliation cases under §216(b)? | §216(b) requires liquidated damages absent good-faith defense; discretionary arguments are improper. | Discretionary under ‘as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of section 215(a)(3)’. | Discretionary; district court did not abuse its discretion in denying liquidated damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patel v. Wargo, 803 F.2d 632 (11th Cir. 1986) (corporate officers may be liable under FLSA for operational control)
- Braswell v. City of El Dorado, Ark., 187 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 1999) (liquidated damages discretionary in retaliation cases)
- Blanton v. City of Murfreesboro, 856 F.2d 731 (6th Cir. 1988) (retaliation cases may be discretionary in awarding liquidated damages)
- Lowe v. Southmark Corp., 998 F.2d 335 (5th Cir. 1993) (debated mandatory vs discretionary liquidated damages in retaliation cases)
- Avitia v. Metro. Club of Chicago, Inc., 49 F.3d 1219 (7th Cir. 1995) (liquidated damages discussed in retaliation context)
- Snapp v. Unlimited Concepts, Inc., 208 F.3d 928 (11th Cir. 2000) (punitive damages framed; discusses discretion in relief)
- White & Son Enters., 881 F.2d 1006 (11th Cir. 1989) (discussion of calculating liquidated damages for wage claims)
- Reeves v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 616 F.2d 1342 (5th Cir. 1980) (early discussion on liquidated damages and good faith)
- Mireles v. Frio Foods, Inc., 899 F.2d 1407 (5th Cir. 1990) (full doubling of damages unless good faith defense proven)
- Silva-Hernandez v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 701 F.3d 356 (11th Cir. 2012) (statutory interpretation guidance on discretionary damages)