Marrs v. United States
16-1297
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs are current/former federal employees who were not timely paid for work during the October 2013 government shutdown and sued under the FLSA for unpaid wages and liquidated damages.
- This case was a companion to Martin; liability under the FLSA for delayed pay was already resolved in Martin III in plaintiffs’ favor, but willfulness under 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) remained unresolved here.
- The complaint was filed more than two but less than three years after accrual; whether the violation was "willful" (extending the limitations period to three years) is dispositive of jurisdiction.
- Undisputed joint stipulations show agencies understood the Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) barred payment during the lapse and did not consider FLSA compliance or seek formal legal advice before or during the shutdown.
- Plaintiffs contend those failures establish willfulness; the government contends the conduct was not reckless and thus not willful under the Supreme Court’s standard.
- The court treats the Richland Shoe (McLaughlin) standard as controlling: willfulness requires that the employer knew or acted with reckless disregard as to whether conduct was prohibited by the FLSA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government’s FLSA violation during the 2013 shutdown was "willful" under 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) | Failure to consider FLSA obligations and failure to obtain legal opinions = willful (reckless disregard) | Compliance with ADA and lack of inquiry do not show reckless disregard; conduct was not willful | Not willful; plaintiffs failed to meet burden; two-year limitations applies, suit time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (willfulness requires knowledge or reckless disregard of statutory prohibition)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (discussed in defining recklessness vs. unreasonableness)
- Bull v. United States, 479 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (fact-specific finding of willfulness based on evidence agency knew of potential FLSA violations)
- Cook v. United States, 855 F.2d 848 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (agency reliance on Department of Labor advice precludes willfulness)
- Abbey v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 254 (Fed. Cl. 2012) (agency’s statutory compliance mistake may be nonwillful under Richland Shoe)
- Martin v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 578 (Fed. Cl. 2017) (companion case resolving liability/good-faith issue for similar shutdown pay practices)