180 F. Supp. 3d 190
D. Conn.2016Background
- 25 plaintiffs sued Ocean State Jobbers, Inc. asserting: (1) FLSA collective claim; (2) Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (CMWA) claims for 15 plaintiffs; and (3) Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law (MFWL) claims for 3 plaintiffs. All 25 have FLSA claims.
- Parties stipulated that plaintiffs established the elements of FLSA, CMWA, and MFWL claims, and that only one element of the executive exemption is contested: whether plaintiffs' primary duty was management.
- Plaintiffs moved in limine raising six evidentiary and pretrial issues (I–VI). The court ruled on each, granting some and denying others.
- Key contested topics: (I) admissibility of Morrison’s other lawsuits; (II) monetary valuation of fringe benefits for assistant store managers (ASMs); (III) testimony about ASM duties not specific to the 25 plaintiffs; (IV) whether each state-law plaintiff must testify individually; (V) which version of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-72 (burden of proof for double damages) applies; (VI) equitable tolling of the FLSA statute of limitations to the date of conditional certification motion.
- Court resolved that representative evidence is appropriate for collective FLSA liability and that procedural changes to burden under § 31-72 apply here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| I. Admissibility of Morrison’s other lawsuits | Exclude evidence of Morrison’s separate discrimination suit and prior suits as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial | Admissible under Rule 404(b) to show motive, knowledge, intent, or to explain termination | Granted: excluded as overly attenuated, prejudicial, and likely to confuse jury |
| II. Monetary value of fringe benefits to ASMs | Exclude evidence of fringe benefit monetary value as irrelevant to primary-duty analysis | Admissible; total cost of compensation is relevant circumstantial evidence about classification incentives | Denied: evidence of total cost/salary & benefits admissible |
| III. General testimony about ASM position (not specific to 25) | Exclude testimony from witnesses without firsthand knowledge of these 25 plaintiffs’ duties | Admissible to show company expectations and that off-duty activities contradicted policy; relevant to exemption, willfulness, damages | Denied: Ocean State may present general ASM evidence to show expectations and practices |
| IV. Whether each state-law plaintiff must testify | Representative evidence suffices; findings on FLSA should carry to state claims so not all plaintiffs must testify | Defendant: each plaintiff must prove individual state claims and testify; otherwise defendant denied full and fair opportunity | Granted: plaintiffs need not all testify; representative proof is acceptable and parties stipulated elements are met |
| V. Burden to avoid double damages under CMWA § 31-72 | Apply amended statute shifting burden to employer (defendant) | Defendant argued amendment should not apply retroactively | Granted: amendment is procedural (burden of proof) and applies here, so employer bears burden to prove good-faith belief |
| VI. Equitable tolling of FLSA statute of limitations to motion-for-certification date | Toll limitations to date of conditional-certification filing because plaintiffs lacked opportunity to join before certification | Defendant opposed broad tolling; noted only agreed 33-day extension | Denied except for agreed 33-day tolling; normal litigation delay here not an extraordinary circumstance for equitable tolling |
Key Cases Cited
- Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80 (2d Cir.) (collective FLSA actions may use representative evidence for liability)
- Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 (Conn. 2003) (double damages under prior § 31-72 tied to bad faith/arbitrariness)
- Gormley v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 216 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1990) (§ 55-3 presumption that statutes imposing new obligations apply prospectively)
- Fulco v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 27 Conn. App. 800 (Conn. App. 1992) (amendments creating new substantive rights are not applied retroactively)
- Davis v. Forman Sch., 54 Conn. App. 841 (Conn. App. 1999) (distinguishing procedural vs. substantive changes; burden-shifting is procedural)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (equitable tolling is a rare remedy; not to become the norm)