Santiago Pineda v. JTCH Apartments, L.L.C.
843 F.3d 1062
5th Cir.2016Background
- Santiago Pineda worked as a maintenance worker for JTCH Apartments; his wife Maria Pena leased and lived in an apartment owned by JTCH. Pineda received rent discounts as part of his compensation.
- After Pineda sued for unpaid overtime under the FLSA, JTCH served a notice to vacate and demanded back rent equal to prior rent discounts; the couple left the apartment.
- Pena joined the suit asserting an FLSA retaliation claim based on the back-rent demand; the district court granted JMOL for defendants on Pena’s retaliation claim as a nonemployee.
- At trial the jury found for Pineda on both overtime and retaliation claims and awarded him damages for each; the district court declined to instruct the jury on emotional-distress damages for retaliation.
- Post-trial the court awarded Pena liquidated damages on Pineda’s wage claim and awarded attorneys’ fees to Pineda’s counsel; defendants appealed only the fee award issues timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FLSA retaliation remedies include emotional-distress damages | Pineda: §216(b)’s grant of “such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate” allows emotional-distress damages for retaliation | Defendants: Emotional damages are not available under the FLSA; rely on Fifth Circuit ADEA precedent | Court: Emotional-distress damages are available for employees in FLSA retaliation suits and jury should have been asked whether Pineda proved such damages |
| Whether a nonemployee spouse may sue for retaliation under the FLSA | Pena: As spouse of the retaliated-against employee, she falls within the statute’s zone of interests and may recover | JTCH: FLSA prohibits retaliation only against an "employee," so nonemployees lack standing | Court: Pena cannot bring an FLSA retaliation claim because §215(a)(3) protects only "employee[s]"; district court dismissal affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence to submit emotional-distress damages to the jury | Pineda: Testimony of sleeplessness, anxiety, marital discord, and housing insecurity supports emotional damages | Defendants: Trial court properly excluded such an instruction (challenged post hoc) | Court: The testimony was sufficient; the jury should have been asked; remand for determination of entitlement to emotional-distress compensation |
| Challenged award of attorneys’ fees and procedural defenses | Defendants: Fee award should be reversed based on alleged Rule 11 violations and excessive-demand doctrine | Plaintiffs: Defendants waived those challenges by failing to properly raise them in district court | Court: Defendants waived Rule 11 and state-law arguments by failing to follow procedural rules; fee award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- GE Capital Commercial, Inc. v. Worthington Nat. Bank, 754 F.3d 297 (5th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of jury instruction hinging on statutory construction)
- Moore v. Freeman, 355 F.3d 558 (6th Cir.) (FLSA retaliation can permit emotional-distress damages)
- Travis v. Gary Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 921 F.2d 108 (7th Cir.) (emotional-distress and punitive damages appropriate for retaliatory discharge under FLSA)
- Travers v. Flight Servs. & Sys., Inc., 808 F.3d 525 (1st Cir.) (upholding emotional-damage award in FLSA retaliation context)
- Broadus v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 238 F.3d 990 (8th Cir.) (affirming jury award including emotional damages in FLSA case)
- Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997 (9th Cir.) (treating emotional damages as available in FLSA retaliation cases)
- Dean v. American Security Insurance Co., 559 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir.) (interpreting ADEA remedies and discussing emotional damages prior to 1977 FLSA amendments)
- Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (zone-of-interests approach under Title VII; contrasted with FLSA’s protection limited to "employee")
- Salinas v. O’Neill, 286 F.3d 827 (5th Cir.) (examples of recoverable emotional-distress injuries: sleeplessness, anxiety, marital problems, humiliation)
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.) (factors for evaluating reasonableness of attorney-fee awards)
- Crawford Professional Drugs, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 748 F.3d 249 (5th Cir.) (arguments not raised in district court are waived)