Little v. Technical Specialty Products, LLC
940 F. Supp. 2d 460
E.D. Tex.2013Background
- Plaintiff sues under the FLSA for unpaid overtime against TSP, Lear, and Ms. Lear, alleging a policy change that limited overtime for driving time.
- Plaintiff, hired May 2011 as a Field Service Technician, was paid hourly with overtime at 1.5x; drove to oil rigs across Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.
- On September 23, 2011, TSP revised its overtime policy to exclude the first and last commute of the day from overtime, though regular pay remained for driving time.
- Plaintiff complained to Ms. Lear and did not sign the amended policy; he was discharged October 21, 2011, with Defendants claiming other performance-based reasons.
- Plaintiff provides handwritten time sheets and checks to prove hours worked; Defendants submit HR affidavits challenging accuracy of commute times.
- The court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ summary judgment motions and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion; the overtime claim is dismissed, but retaliatory discharge survives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Farrington and Barnes | Farrington's and Barnes's testimony should be admitted under Daubert. | Farrington invades the court's role with legal conclusions; Barnes's methodology is vague and unreliable. | Farrington stricken; Barnes's testimony allowed. |
| Whether Plaintiff's FLSA overtime claim survives | Defendants failed to pay overtime for hours worked beyond 40 in a week. | Policy changes and commuting time were non-compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act and ECFA. | Plaintiff's overtime claim is dismissed; Defendant granted summary judgment on the overtime claim. |
| Retaliatory discharge under the FLSA | Discharge was in retaliation for voicing objections to the overtime policy. | Discharge for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons unrelated to protected activity. | Retaliation claim survives; plaintiff showed protected activity and causal link; summary judgment denied. |
| Damages available for retaliation under the FLSA | Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for retaliation. | Punitive damages are unavailable; only liquidated damages exist alongside lost wages. | Compensatory damages permitted; punitive damages denied beyond liquidated damages. |
| ECFA and normal commuting area analysis | Vehicle use for commuting should be compensable; ECFA applies. | Commuting was within normal commuting area and occurred under an agreement; not compensable. | Travel within normal commuting area and under an employer-employee agreement is not compensable; ECFA does not render commuting time compensable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court, 1986) (summary judgment burden and shifting standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986) (genuine issues of material fact)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993) (gatekeeping for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court, 1999) (flexible Daubert framework)
- Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239 (5th Cir., 2002) (Daubert factors applicability to expert testimony)
- St. Martin v. Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S., Inc., 224 F.3d 402 (5th Cir., 2000) (gatekeeper obligations and Daubert factors)
- Rodriguez v. Riddell Sports, Inc., 242 F.3d 567 (5th Cir., 2001) (Daubert admissibility framework)
- Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347 (5th Cir., 2007) (evidence and expert testimony considerations)
- Hagan v. EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C., 529 F.3d 617 (5th Cir., 2008) (prima facie elements for retaliatory discharge under FLSA)
- Anderson v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 147 F.Supp.2d 556 (E.D. Tex., 2001) (Portal-to-Portal Act guidance and travel time)