Michael Souryavong v. County of Lackawanna
872 F.3d 122
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Michael Souryavong and Nelson Rolon (part of a class of part-time county employees) alleged Lackawanna County failed to aggregate hours across two part-time jobs and therefore underpaid overtime from 2008–2012.
- The County conceded liability for unpaid overtime but disputed that its violations were "willful," which would extend the limitations period under the FLSA.
- Evidence at trial included county payroll records, testimony that the County generally knew about FLSA obligations, and a March 28, 2011 email from the County HR director noting "wage and hour issues" and specific employees (including co-plaintiff Velez) working over 40 hours across two jobs.
- The District Court granted the County’s Rule 50(a) motion on willfulness (directed verdict for the County) because plaintiffs failed to show the County had subjective awareness that the two-job practice violated the FLSA as to Souryavong and Rolon prior to their violations.
- The jury nevertheless awarded $5,588.30 in unpaid overtime; the District Court awarded liquidated damages (doubling the unpaid overtime) based on the County’s failure to take affirmative steps to ascertain FLSA compliance.
- The District Court awarded attorney’s fees but reduced plaintiff counsel’s requested lodestar ($400/hr, 367.6 hrs) to $250/hr and 278.2 compensable hours, then further reduced the lodestar under Hensley factors to a final fee of $55,852.85; plaintiffs appealed the willfulness ruling and the fee reductions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to submit FLSA "willfulness" to the jury | Plaintiffs argued the County’s multi-year violations, HR email flagging "wage and hour issues," and county officials’ testimony about FLSA awareness created a jury question on willfulness | County argued plaintiffs offered no evidence that the County had subjective awareness that the two-job practice violated the FLSA as to Souryavong and Rolon before the violations | Court affirmed: evidence insufficient to show subjective awareness of FLSA violation as to Souryavong and Rolon; directed verdict proper |
| Whether liquidated damages award required a willfulness finding | Plaintiffs contended liquidated damages demonstrate intentional or willful violation | County argued it acted in good faith and inadvertence, so liquidated damages were inappropriate | Court upheld liquidated damages based on County’s failure to take affirmative steps to ascertain legality (good-faith defense not proven) |
| Whether District Court correctly applied lodestar and considered Johnson/Hensley factors post-Perdue | Plaintiffs argued Perdue eliminated use of Johnson factors to deviate from lodestar | County/ District Court applied lodestar then considered additional factors to deviate downward | Court held Perdue permits lodestar as baseline and allows limited consideration of other factors; no error in using Hensley/Johnson factors to justify downward deviation |
| Whether the hourly rate and hours awarded were reasonable | Plaintiffs argued $400/hr and full hours were justified and District Court erred in reducing them | County offered affidavits of comparable rates lower than $400/hr; Court found plaintiffs were not prejudiced by hearing and explanation | Court affirmed $250/hr and reduced hours; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (defines FLSA "willfulness" as knowledge or reckless disregard)
- Martin v. Cooper Elec. Supply Co., 940 F.2d 896 (3d Cir. 1991) (failure to take affirmative steps to ascertain FLSA requirements supports liquidated damages)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (fee awards: lodestar and consideration of results obtained)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (lodestar is baseline; deviations permitted in rare circumstances)
- Flores v. City of San Gabriel, 824 F.3d 890 (9th Cir.) (familiarity with problem and prolonged misclassification can support willfulness)
- Davila v. Menendez, 717 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir.) (egregious facts—manipulation/concealment—can support willfulness)