Stephen Allen, Jr. v. Entergy Louisiana, L.
866 F.3d 610
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Nineteen former Wackenhut security contractors became Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOI) "security shift supervisors" after EOI brought security in-house; offers were premised on an exempt classification under the FLSA.
- Plaintiffs sued claiming they were misclassified as exempt and seek overtime backpay; the classification issue remains unresolved at trial.
- The district court denied summary judgment on misclassification but entered partial summary judgment that (1) the fluctuating workweek method governs calculation of the regular rate and (2) discretionary bonuses would offset any backpay.
- Those remedy rulings produced final dismissal of two plaintiffs (Hills and Luke) because the combined effect reduced their maximum recoveries below zero; they appealed only those dismissals.
- The Fifth Circuit assumed for remedy purposes that plaintiffs were misclassified and reviewed whether the district court erred in applying the fluctuating workweek as a matter of law; the panel reversed that legal ruling and reinstated Hills’s and Luke’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fluctuating workweek method applies to compute the regular rate | Plaintiffs (Hills/Luke): they agreed only to a fixed alternating biweekly schedule (36/48 hrs), not an unlimited-hours salary | EOI: plaintiffs knew schedule fluctuated and salary covered whatever hours the job demanded, so fluctuating-workweek applies | Reversed district court: applicability is a factual question for the trier of fact; summary judgment erroneous |
| Whether an alternating fixed biweekly schedule (e.g., 36/48 hrs) is per se "fluctuating" under the method | Plaintiffs: predictable alternating schedule is "fixed," not the unlimited-hours arrangement required | EOI: alternating weeks still vary week-to-week and thus supports fluctuating-workweek computation | Court: alternating fixed schedule is not necessarily "fluctuating" in the regulatory/technical sense; factfinder must decide |
| Whether the district court could dismiss Hills and Luke after remedy rulings reduced recovery to zero | Hills/Luke: remedy rulings were premature and eliminated their viable claims | EOI: remedy rulings were proper and justified final dismissal | Court: dismissal was erroneous because reversing the fluctuating-workweek ruling can revive their recoveries; remand to reinstate claims |
| Whether bonus payments should offset backpay (bonus-offset issue) | Plaintiffs: preserved objection; contested offsets | EOI: discretionary bonuses offset backpay | Not reached on the merits; plaintiffs preserved the issue for future consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron, 334 U.S. 446 (Supreme Court) (regular-rate calculation is often "perplexing")
- Griffin v. Wake County, 142 F.3d 712 (4th Cir.) (applied fluctuating-workweek to alternating-week schedule)
- Samson v. Apollo Resources, Inc., 242 F.3d 629 (5th Cir.) (burden on employee to show fluctuating-workweek inapplicable)
- Black v. SettlePou, P.C., 732 F.3d 492 (5th Cir.) (evidence of employee objection supports inference salary did not cover all hours)
- O’Brien v. Town of Agawam, 350 F.3d 279 (1st Cir.) (regular-rate calculation discussion)