Burden To Prove Fair Labor Pay Violation Falls On Plaintiffs
NEW ORLEANS - A Texas federal court wrongly shifted the burden to the employer to prove that it was not "willful" in its misclassification of several positions as "exempt" in a Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 4 (Randy Stokes, Jr., et al. v. BWXT Pantex, L.L.C., No. 10-10470, 5th Cir.).
A group of individuals employed by BWXT Pantex LLC, a U.S. Department of Energy facility that assembles and disassembles nuclear weapons, sued their employer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging that they were misclassified as exempt under the FLSA and were actually owed overtime pay.
Following a bench trial, the District Court found that six of the challenged positions were properly classified as exempt and that four were wrongfully classified. The District Court also determined that BWXT acted willfully and did not act in good faith by wrongfully classifying those four positions. The plaintiffs holding those positions were awarded three years of unpaid overtime and an equal amount in liquidated damages.
BWXT appealed only the District Court's finding that it willfully violated the FLSA. That determination was the basis for BWXT being liable for three, instead of two, years' worth of overtime pay. BWXT claims that the District Court wrongfully applied the "lack of good faith" standard for liquidated damages and erroneously placed the burden on BWXT to show a "lack of willfulness."
Vacating the District Court's judgment, the Fifth Circuit panel opined that while the District Court was thorough in addressing the claims, the incorrect legal standard was applied to the plaintiffs' claim that BWXT willfully violated the FLSA.
"The factual findings all relate to what BWXT did not prove-rather than what plaintiffs did prove-and do not address whether BWXT either knew or showed reckless disregard for whether it was violating the FLSA. The district court's factual findings therefore are insufficient for us to review the issue even under a de novo standard of review. It is therefore appropriate for us to vacate the final judgment and remand the case back to the district court for it to make additional factual findings and decide the issue using the correct legal standard and placing the burden of proof on the plaintiffs," the panel wrote in its per curiam opinion.
(Abstract of Article from LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Litigation Report Employment Law, Vol. 7, Issue #10, May 2011).