Monroe v. Progressive Waste Solutions of LA, Inc., 2:17-cv-05695

Background

Plaintiffs Cne Dawson and Jerry Monroe sued multiple Waste Connections entities and IESI alleging FLSA unpaid-overtime/retaliation and Louisiana whistleblower claims. A third plaintiff was previously dismissed.
Dawson was hired by Progressive Waste Solutions of LA, Inc. (PWS) in August 2015 and was terminated by PWS in December 2015. He did not allege employment with the other defendants.
Monroe was hired by PWS in April 2016 as an exempt operations manager; PWS merged into Waste Connections US, Inc. (WCUS) on June 1, 2016. Monroe alleges retaliation after complaining about pay practices and was terminated by WCUS in March 2017.
Defendants moved to dismiss claims against Waste Connections of Louisiana, Inc. (WCL), WCUS, and IESI for failure to meet Rule 8 notice pleading, failure to allege FLSA enterprise or individual coverage, and failure to plead an employer-employee relationship.
Plaintiffs conceded they did not allege enterprise coverage and had moved to amend, but the Magistrate denied leave to amend as futile with respect to adding enterprise allegations and including IESI.
The Court granted the motion to dismiss in part: dismissed Dawson’s claims against WCL, WCUS, and IESI; dismissed Monroe’s claims against WCL and IESI — all dismissals without prejudice and subject to a timely well-grounded motion to amend/reconsider.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint pleads FLSA enterprise coverage	Plaintiffs sought leave to amend to allege each defendant is an enterprise with >$500,000 annual gross volume	Complaint fails to plead enterprise coverage as required by FLSA and Rule 8	Plaintiffs conceded omission; amendment denied as futile regarding IESI; enterprise coverage not established
Whether complaint pleads employer-employee relationship for Dawson	Dawson alleged employment by PWS and related pay complaints	Defendants argued no plausible employer relationship between Dawson and WCL/WCUS/IESI because Dawson was employed and terminated by PWS before the merger	Dawson only sufficiently alleged PWS as employer; claims against WCL, WCUS, IESI dismissed without prejudice
Whether complaint pleads employer-employee relationship for Monroe	Monroe alleged he worked for PWS and, post-merger, possibly WCUS and complained of illegal pay/retaliation	Defendants said pleadings fail to show the four-factor control test (hire/fire, supervise, set pay, maintain records) for WCL/IESI; parent/subsidiary ties insufficient alone	Monroe plausibly alleged relationship with PWS and possibly WCUS; Monroe did not sufficiently allege relationship with WCL or IESI; claims against those dismissed without prejudice
Rule 8 adequacy of pleading	Plaintiffs argued their Second Amended Complaint provided sufficient notice and sought to amend defects	Defendants contended complaint is conclusory and lacks factual allegations to state a plausible claim	Court applied Twombly/Iqbal standards, found deficiencies as to enterprise coverage and certain employer relationships; dismissal granted in part

Key Cases Cited

Lowrey v. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 1997) (dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is disfavored)
Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045 (5th Cir. 1982) (standard on motions to dismiss)
Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 1996) (courts accept well-pleaded facts as true on dismissal review)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations)
Gonzales v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2009) (applying Twombly/Iqbal in Fifth Circuit)
Johnson v. Heckmann Water Res. (CVR), Inc., 758 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2014) (elements plaintiff must prove for FLSA unpaid overtime claim)
Martin v. Bedell, 955 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir. 1992) (enterprise or individual coverage required under FLSA)
Fletcher v. Atex, Inc., 68 F.3d 1451 (2d Cir. 1995) (corporate affiliation/parentage alone does not justify piercing corporate veil)