189 F. Supp. 3d 811
S.D. Iowa2016Background
- Plaintiff Brandon Tegtmeier worked as a Papa John’s delivery driver for PJ Iowa (Jan–Oct 2014) and alleges PJ Iowa paid sub-minimum net wages by: (1) misapplying the FLSA tip credit to time spent on non-tipped work; (2) failing to reimburse vehicle and driving-record expenses; and (3) deducting uniform costs without proper written authorization.
- Tegtmeier filed a multi-count complaint asserting FLSA collective actions (two opt-in collectives: delivery drivers and non-supervisory employees) and Iowa state-law Rule 23 class actions (Iowa delivery drivers and Iowa non-supervisory employees) seeking minimum-wage and wage-payment remedies.
- PJ Iowa moved to dismiss, arguing (a) the FLSA preempts Tegtmeier’s Iowa Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) claims because they conflict procedurally with FLSA collective-action rules, (b) IWPCL deduction claims based on unreimbursed expenses fail as no wage "deduction" occurred, and (c) uniform-deduction claims fail because Tegtmeier authorized deductions.
- PJ Iowa also moved under Rule 67 to deposit funds (initially $6,000) with the court to moot Tegtmeier’s individual claim; the court treated this as discretionary and evaluated post-Campbell‑Ewald considerations.
- The court treated IMWL claims as "parallel" (state-law substantive entitlement independent of FLSA) and refused to preempt them; it dismissed the IWPCL claim based on unreimbursed vehicle/driving-record expenses for failure to allege an actual wage deduction; it allowed the uniform-deduction IWPCL claim to proceed (authorship of a single shirt form disputed). The Rule 67 deposit request was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FLSA preempts IMWL claims (Counts IV–V) | IMWL provides independent state-law wage entitlement; parallel IMWL claims are allowed alongside FLSA collectives | Allowing Rule 23 IMWL classes would circumvent FLSA’s opt-in collective scheme and conflict procedurally | Denied preemption — IMWL parallel claims not preempted by FLSA |
| Whether IWPCL claim for unreimbursed vehicle/driving-record expenses (Count VI) states a claim | Unreimbursed employer-required expenses function as an indirect "kickback" reducing wages and fit within IWPCL deductions framework | These are unreimbursed expenses, not wage deductions under IWPCL §91A.5 | Dismissed — no allegation of an actual wage deduction, so Count VI fails |
| Whether IWPCL claim for uniform deductions (Count VII) states a claim | Deductions for multiple uniform items lacked proper written authorization under IWPCL | PJ Iowa produced a form authorizing deduction for one shirt and contends some items provided free; additional purchases were employee convenience | Claim survives facial challenge — plaintiff plausibly alleges unauthorized deductions beyond the single-form authorization |
| Whether Court should allow defendant to deposit funds under Rule 67 to moot plaintiff’s individual claim | Deposit would fully satisfy individual claim and could moot plaintiff’s case per Campbell‑Ewald dicta | Deposit is discretionary; no competing claim to funds; procedure for settlements/offers exists (Rule 68); deposit could be an improper attempt to "pick off" | Denied — court declines to permit deposit; Rule 67 not appropriate here and deposit would not be justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (preemption framework and presumption against displacement of state police powers)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 765 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2014) (treatment of FLSA/state-law interaction; discussed but Eighth Circuit avoided procedural-preemption holding)
- Knepper v. Rite Aid Corp., 675 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2012) (parallel state wage-law claims not preempted by FLSA where state law creates independent substantive rights)
- Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp., 508 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 2007) (preemption of state-law claims that merely duplicate FLSA rights)
- Zanders v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 55 F. Supp. 3d 1163 (S.D. Iowa 2014) (distinguishes duplicative v. parallel state claims; held duplicative state claims preempted)
- Campbell‑Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (unaccepted settlement offers/offers of judgment do not moot putative class claims; dicta on deposits considered)