Nicole Olibas v. Leslie Kreis
838 F.3d 442
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Native Oilfield Services employed truck drivers to transport sand for hydraulic fracking; drivers sued as a collective under the FLSA for unpaid overtime between 2009–2014.
- Native asserted the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption to FLSA overtime, conceding it was a motor carrier and drivers used vehicles over 10,000 lbs.; dispute focused on whether drivers performed interstate transport or intrastate transport in the flow of interstate commerce.
- Native failed to produce logs, bills of lading, time sheets, or other documentary evidence proving interstate trips; produced limited IFTAs that were incomplete and not driver-specific.
- Jury found for the drivers: MCA exemption not established, FLSA overtime violations were willful, and drivers averaged 18 hours unpaid overtime weekly.
- District court used representative testimony and post-verdict driver declarations to calculate regular rate and damages after finding Native failed to keep adequate payroll records; awarded unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, fees, and costs.
- Native appealed denial of JMOL and new trial, challenging sufficiency of evidence for MCA exemption, certain jury instructions, the damages-average finding, and the court’s use of post-verdict declarations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Drivers) | Defendant's Argument (Native) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCA exemption applies (JMOL/new trial) | Native failed to prove exemption; drivers’ testimony and lack of records support liability | Drivers routinely engaged in interstate or intrastate-in-flow work so exemption applies | Verdict upheld; sufficient evidence supported jury finding that MCA exemption was not established |
| Jury instruction re “reasonable expectation” (MCA multi-factor) | Instruction and example were proper and not misleading | Single-factor example omitted full factor list and prejudiced Native | No reversible error; example framed as one non-exhaustive factor and record contained other factor evidence |
| Damages instruction: requirement that jury calculate each driver’s actual hours | Representative testimony and averages suffice when employer lacks records | Jury should have been required to calculate actual hours for each driver (Native’s lengthy proposed instruction) | District court did not abuse discretion; FLSA permits estimation from representative testimony and Native’s proposal was unduly burdensome |
| Use of post-verdict declarations and court’s damages calculation | Declarations appropriate for court to determine regular rate and damages after liability verdict; employer failed to rebut | Declarations were improper reopening and prejudicial; jury’s 18-hour average unsupported | Court did not abuse discretion in considering declarations or in accepting jury’s average given Native’s failure to keep records |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Coil Tubing Servs., L.L.C., 755 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2014) (defines MCA exemption framework and burden on employer)
- Evans v. Ford Motor Co., 484 F.3d 329 (5th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for JMOL/new trial amid conflicting evidence)
- Donovan v. Hamm’s Drive Inn, 661 F.2d 316 (5th Cir. 1981) (FLSA damages may be estimated when employer fails to keep required records)
- Beliz v. W.H. McLeod & Sons Packing Co., 765 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1985) (representative testimony can prove hours worked for non-testifying employees)
- Dalton v. Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., 703 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1983) (jury as factfinder weighing credibility)
- Black v. SettlePou, P.C., 732 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2013) (court determines regular rate and overtime premium as questions of law)