Chevalier v. Gen. Nutrition Ctrs., Inc.
Decision Date | 22 December 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 92 WDA 2017,No. 1437 WDA 2016,1437 WDA 2016,92 WDA 2017 |
Citation | 177 A.3d 280 |
Parties | Tawny L. CHEVALIER and Andrew Hiller, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellees v. GENERAL NUTRITION CENTERS, INC. and General Nutrition Corporation, Appellants Tawny L. Chevalier and Andrew Hiller, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc. and General Nutrition Corporation, Appellants |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Allison R. Brown, Pittsburgh, and Robert W. Pritchard, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Adrian N. Roe, Pittsburgh, and Michael D. Simon, Monroeville, for appellee.
In these consolidated appeals, General Nutrition Centers, Inc. and General Nutrition Corporation (together, "GNC") appeal from: (1) the September 6, 2016 judgment entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas in favor of Tawny L. Chevalier and Andrew Hiller, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (collectively, "Employees"); and (2) the December 29, 2016 order granting Employees' petition for counsel fees and litigation costs. Employees sued GNC on the ground that GNC's method of calculating their overtime pay violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), 43 P.S. §§ 333.101 – 333.115. The trial court agreed and granted Employees' motion for summary judgment, entering judgment in Employees' favor in the amount of $1,378,494.77 plus interest. The court later granted Employees' petition for counsel fees and costs.
For the reasons that follow, we hold that: (1) GNC's method of calculating an employee's "regular rate" by dividing the employee's salary in a given week by the number of hours actually worked in that week did not violate the PMWA; and (2) GNC's payment of an overtime premium of only one-half the "regular rate" violated the PMWA and its accompanying regulations. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's judgment, vacate the order concerning fees and costs, and remand for further proceedings.
I. Factual and Procedural History
The trial court summarized the background of this case as follows:
Trial Ct. Op., 10/20/14, at 1–4 (italics in original).
In 2014, GNC and Employees filed cross-motions for summary judgment, limited to the issue of whether GNC's use of the FWW method to calculate overtime compensation complies with the PMWA. On October 20, 2014, the trial court granted Employees' motion and denied GNC's motion, concluding:
On December 16, 2014, Employees filed a motion for class certification, which GNC opposed. On July 15, 2015, the trial court granted Employees' motion, certifying a class of current and former GNC employees in Pennsylvania who were paid overtime compensation using the FWW method.
Thereafter, GNC requested additional discovery. On March 15, 2016, Employees filed a motion for a protective order objecting to the requested discovery, which the trial court granted. Also on March 15, 2016, Employees filed a motion to include commissions in the calculation of Employees' damages for unpaid overtime. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that GNC may not use the FWW method of calculating overtime as to Employees' commissions. See Trial Ct. Op., 5/11/16, at 3–5.
On September 6, 2016, the trial court entered final judgment as follows:
Trial Ct. Judgment, 9/6/16, at 1–2.3 On September 29, 2016, GNC timely appealed from the judgment.
On September 15, 2016, Employees filed a petition for counsel fees, litigation costs, and incentive payments, to which GNC filed a response. On December 30, 2016, the trial court awarded counsel fees in the amount of $360,000 and litigation costs in the amount of $8,000 but denied Employees' request for incentive payments. On January 17, 2017, GNC timely appealed from that order.
GNC raises the following issues on appeal:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Poe v. IESI MD Corp.
...345-46 (W.D. Pa. 2012) ; Cerutti v. Frito Lay, Inc. , 777 F. Supp. 2d 920, 945 (W.D. Pa. 2011) ; see also Chevalier v. General Nutrition Ctrs., Inc. , 177 A.3d 280 (Pa. Super. 2017), appeal granted , 189 A.3d 386 (2018). Under a regulation interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act, the over......
-
Ovalle v. Harris Blacktopping, Inc.
... ... 101, 104 n.5 ... (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen ... Inc. , 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011)). “A ... § 333.104(c) ... [45] Chevaliar v. Gen ... Nutrition Ctr's, Inc. , 177 A.3d 280, 295-96 (Pa ... Super. Ct. 2017) (citing ... ...
-
Chevalier ex rel. Situated v. Gen. Nutrition Ctrs., Inc.
...an employer to use the [FWW] method to calculate overtime compensation for salaried employees." Chevalier v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc. , 177 A.3d 280, 287 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting Super. Ct. Order, 9/22/17, at 2). The Department declined the invitation, asserting that the question "......
-
Heimbach v. Amazon.Com, Inc. (In re Amazon.Com, Inc.)
...overtime payments" that the Supreme Court of the United States has authorized under the FLSA. Chevalier v. Gen. Nutrition Ctrs., Inc. , 177 A.3d 280, 286 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) ; see Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572, 62 S.Ct. 1216, 86 L.Ed. 1682 (1942). While the Pennsylva......