Alawar v. Trican Well Serv., L.P.
| Decision Date | 28 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 5:16-CV-00014-RCL |
| Citation | 397 F.Supp.3d 873 |
| Parties | Rawad ALAWAR et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRICAN WELL SERV., L.P., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Carlos Adrian Solis, Hilley & Solis Law PLLC, Lawrence Morales, II, Allison Sarah Hartry, The Morales Law Firm, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Bryant S. McFall, John B. Brown, Robyn M. Funk, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart. P.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendant.
Before the Court are defendant Trican Well Service, LP's ("Trican") Motion for Summary Judgment [42], defendant's Brief in Support thereof [43], plaintiff Rawad Alawar and Class Members' ("Alawar" or "Field Engineers" or "Class Members") Response in Opposition thereto [50], and defendant's Reply [53]. Also pending before the Court are plaintiffs' Objections to Jason Cleveland's Declaration [49], defendant's Response thereto [54], and plaintiffs' Reply [57].
After reviewing the pleadings and the record in its entirety, the Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Trican's Motion for Summary Judgment. Alawar's Objections to Jason Cleveland's Declaration will be OVERRULED WITHOUT PREJUDICE , and such objections shall be governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence at trial.
This collective action arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. Alawar and the Field Engineers were formerly in Trican's employ. ECF No. 43, at 5; ECF No. 50, at 1. Alawar brings this action on behalf of himself and all other Field Engineers who were contemporaneously in Trican's employ. Id. Alawar also brings his claim on behalf of William Fruhwirth, who Trican employed as a Service Supervisor. Id. The plaintiffs, collectively, are thus "Field Engineers and Fruhwirth."
At times relevant to the events underlying this litigation, Trican was a pressure-pumping company with operations in many states, headquartered in Houston. ECF No. 43, at 6; ECF No. 50, at 2. Specifically, it provided integrated well-service solutions to its customers, who were involved in the exploration and development of oil and natural gas reserves. ECF No. 43, at 6. Chiefly, Trican provided fracking and coil tubing support to its customers. ECF No. 50, at 2.
In general, Trican assigned one Field Engineer to each of its well-sites per shift, each of whom reported to a District Engineer. ECF No. 50, at 2; see also ECF No. 43, at 9. Trican also assigned one Service Supervisor to each well-site, whose function was to supervise the crew and all of the operations taking place at the well-site. ECF No. 50, at 2. Additionally, Trican's customers usually assigned a "Company Man" to represent the customer's interests at each well-site. ECF No. 50, at 2; ECF No. 43, at 9.
Since at least January 8, 2013,1 the Field Engineers monitored down-hole well conditions from computer screens in "data vans" located on the well-sites. ECF No. 50, at 2; ECF No. 43, at 9. They were mainly responsible for monitoring a computer screen, which relayed certain data to them. ECF No. 50, at 2. According to the Field Engineers, one key duty was to alert the Service Supervisor and Company Man if the computer screen reported levels beyond those deemed acceptable to Trican and its customer. Id. at 2–3.
The parties' characterizations sharply differ vis-à-vis the scope of the Field Engineers' duties, their day-to-day functions, and Trican's reporting structure. For example, Trican alleges that Field Engineers were "required to exercise [their] judgment and discretion on a daily basis to interpret the monitored data from the well, assess potential problems, and make recommendations based upon [their] findings."
ECF No. 43, at 10. The Field Engineers, meanwhile, explain that they would "monitor the chemical levels present ... and document such information on a spreadsheet to keep record." ECF No. 50, at 3. If the data fell beyond Trican's or its customers' established guidelines, Field Engineers "alerted the Service Supervisor, who would relay the information to other site employees and administrators." Id. Trican concedes that the Field Engineers "notified and conferred with the Company Man and/or the Service Supervisor" in such circumstances. ECF No. 43, at 10.
As another example, the Field Engineers allege that they "had no discretion to recommend changes to a project to resolve an identified problem." ECF No. 50, at 4. But, Trican maintains that the Field Engineers did, in fact, have "discretion to make recommended changes to a project to resolve an identified problem." Id. at 10–11. The parties agree that the Field Engineers would consult with the Service Supervisor, but they disagree as to whether the Field Engineers' input had any bearing on Trican's ultimate determination of resolving the problem. Compare ECF No. 43, at 11 (), with ECF No. 50, at 4 ( ).
In addition, the parties provide conflicting characterizations of the nature of the Field Engineers' work. The Field Engineers maintain that they spent approximately one-quarter of their time "conducting fluid recovery," a manual task. ECF No. 50, at 3. Trican maintains that it "did not require Field Engineers to perform manual labor on the job site." ECF No. 43, at 11.
Finally, the parties dispute the Field Engineers' work schedule and compensation regime. The Field Engineers allege that they were scheduled to work for "8 days on and 4 days off" for scheduled 12-hour shifts on each day. ECF No. 50, at 5. They maintain, however, that they were normally required to work beyond their scheduled hours, generally "14 or even 17 hours a day," and that they often "would be on the well-site for 14 or 15 days before they had time off." Id. at 5–6. Meanwhile, Trican maintains that it paid the Field Engineers "an annual salary in excess of $455 per week" and that they "understood their salary was intended to cover any and all hours worked," irrespective of "whether they worked over or under forty hours." ECF No. 43, at 7.
Fruhwirth is the only Service Supervisor who is a party to this action. The parties do not dispute Fruhwirth's primary duties as a Service Supervisor. In general, Fruhwirth's main task was "to supervise his crew of 8-16 hourly equipment operators/ground hands." Id. at 12. He "ran [the well-sites] and crews with little to no supervision." Id. at 13. From time to time, Fruhwirth worked in the data van alongside the Field Engineers "as a team." Id. From time to time, Fruhwirth would "assist his crew with manual tasks," but Trican contends that this was not his primary duty. Id. at 14.
However, the parties distinctly characterize Fruhwirth's compensation structure. Trican alleges that Fruhwirth "understood his salary was intended to cover any and all hours worked" and that he would be paid "the same amount each week regardless of whether he worked over or under forty hours" in that week. Id. at 12. Fruhwirth maintains, however, that his salary was reduced on or about February 9, 2015 when Trican reduced the quantity of work available to him, but that it continued to require him to work a varied schedule, so that he was no longer considered a "salaried" employee. ECF No. 50, at 8.
The parties do not dispute that on or about February 9, 2015, Trican's Director of Human Resources notified every Trican employee of a company-wide wage reduction. Id. at 8. Therein, Trican informed all of its employees that it would reduce their salaries by 10 percent. Id. Notwithstanding the salary reductions, Trican continued to require the Field Engineers to work at their respective well-sites for a minimum of 12 hours per day, but would frequently "deviate from [that] schedule," causing Field Engineers to work very long shifts of up to 17 hours per day. Id. Before the salary reduction, Field Engineers routinely worked a schedule of "8 days on, 4 days off," for 12 hours each day. Id. Thus, according to the Field Engineers, Trican reduced their pay and required them to work erratic, long hours. Id. Trican does not deny these allegations. See ECF No. 43; ECF No. 53.
Some months later,2 Trican terminated the Field Engineers' and Fruhwirth's employment. Trican alleges that, as a condition of receiving severance pay, some Field Engineers and Fruhwirth purportedly released any and all claims arising from their employ with Trican including, ostensibly, any FLSA claim. ECF No. 43, at 14. All of the plaintiffs were terminated in 2015.
On January 8, 2016, Alawar filed the instant action. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Alawar amended his complaint on January 15, 2016. Amend. Compl., ECF No. 6. On April 15, 2016, the Court granted the parties' Stipulated Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice to Putative Class Members, thus establishing a collective action against Trican.
A moving party is entitled to summary judgment upon showing that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see also Meadaa v. K.A.P. Enters., LLC , 756 F.3d 875, 880 (5th Cir. 2014). A dispute is genuine only "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
"When summary judgment is sought on an affirmative defense, as here, the movant ‘must establish beyond peradventure all of the essential...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Tyler Techs.
... ... sessions for clients as well as new Tyler employees on how to ... use the ... Alawar v. Trican Well Serv., L.P. , 397 F.Supp.3d ... 873, ... ...
-
Guilbeau v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp.
... ... well-pled facts as true, construing all reasonable inferences ... Morrison v. Marathon Petroleum Co., LP , No ... SA-20-CV-0480-JKP-RBF, 2021 WL 1739243, at ... $455 paid per week. See Alawar v. Trican Well Serv., ... LP , 397 F.Supp.3d 873, 897 ... ...
- Young v. Energy Drilling Co.
-
Cooper v. Project Res. Grp.
... ... protected from the evil of overwork as well as ... underpay.” Barrentine v. Ark-Best Freight ... require.” Alawar v. Trican Well Serv., L.P., ... 397 F.Supp.3d 873, ... ...