Boddy v. Astec, Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 November 2012
• Docket Number: 1:11-CV-123
• Parties: VALERIE BODDY, Plaintiff, v. ASTEC, INC., and ASTEC INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

VALERIE BODDY, Plaintiff,

v.ASTEC, INC., and ASTEC INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants.

1:11-CV-123

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

Dated: November 13, 2012

Judge Curtis L. Collier

MEMORANDUM

Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. Defendants Astec, Inc. ("Astec") and Astec Industries, Inc. ("Astec Industries") (collectively "Defendants") move for full summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Valerie Boddy's ("Boddy") claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (Court File No. 40). Boddy responded to Defendants' motion (Court File No. 52). Boddy, for her part, moves for summary judgment only with respect to her claim she was not compensated for overtime as required by the FLSA (Court File No. 49). Defendants responded to Boddy's motion (Court File No. 53). For the reasons stated below, the Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Court File No. 40): the Court will GRANT summary judgment for Astec Industries on all claims; the Court will GRANT summary judgment for Astec on Boddy's retaliation claims; but the Court will DENY summary judgment on Boddy's overtime claim. Additionally, the Court will DENY Boddy's motion for partial summary judgment (Court File No. 49). These dispositions will leave one claim standing for trial: Boddy's claim she was misclassified as "exempt" from applicable overtime provisions of the FLSA. Boddy's second amended complaint does not demand a jury for her overtime claim.

I. RELEVANT FACTS

Astec is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Astec Industries, and specializes in designing and manufacturing equipment used in road building and similar construction activities (Court File No. 1, ¶ 7). Although Astec is empowered to engage in operations and decisionmaking without significant interference from Astec Industries, certain policies uniformly apply to all of Astec Industries' subsidiaries. Astec makes all employment decisions without the involvement of Astec Industries, with the exception of senior management positions, but some policies such as the Code of Conduct and Ethics apply across all subsidiaries (Court File No. 40-2, Dec. Brooks, p. 1).

In 2005, the position of "General Accountant" at Astec was vacated when Lori McMahan was promoted to Controller (Court File No. 40-3, Dec. McMahan, p. 2). McMahan produced a job description of her position, which included the duties and responsibilities of a general accountant:

• Compiles and analyzes financial information to prepare entries to accounts, such as general ledger accounts, and documenting business transactions.

• Analyzes financial information detailing assets, liabilities, and capital and prepares balance sheet, profit and loss statement, and other reports to summarize and interpret current and projected company financial position for other managers.

• Audits contracts, orders, and vouchers and prepares reports to substantiate individual transactions prior to settlement.

• Installs, modifies, documents, and coordinates implementation of accounting systems and accounting control procedures.

• Devises and implements system for general accounting.

• Makes recommendations regarding the account of reserves, assets, and expenditures.

• Conducts studies and submits recommendations for improving the organization's accounting operation.

• Collects appropriate data and prepares federal, state, and local reports and tax returns.

• Follows company policies and procedures at all times.

• Follows proper safety rules and procedures at all times.

• Performs other duties as assigned.

(Court File No. 40-5, Ex. 6). Campbell Brooks, Director of Human Resources at Astec, reviewedthe job description and concluded it was exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.

In September 2005, Boddy was hired as a "Senior General Accountant" (Court File No. 40-3, Dec. McMahan, p. 2). Boddy has a bachelor's and a master's degree in accounting from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga but has never passed the Certified Public Accountant ("CPA") examination (Court File No. 40-5, Boddy Dep., pp. 20-22). The Senior General Accountant position was the same in duties as a General Accountant, but the title was changed because McMahan "needed someone with a little bit stronger knowledge than just a general accountant" (Court File No. 40-4, McMahan Dep., p. 50).

Boddy reported to McMahan during her time at Astec. She performed accounting functions on Astec's general ledger, which included verifying whether transactions on the general ledger were "legitimate transactions" (Court File No. 46-1, McMahan Dep., p. 53). After Boddy verified the transactions, she would create a journal entry recording the depreciation (id. at p. 61). This duty involved basic data entry: moving one number from one page to another (id.). Boddy also audited transactions to ensure they were properly posted to their appropriate accounts in the journal, which involved randomly sampling entries (id. at p. 63). Much of Boddy's time was apparently spent double-checking entries made by other individuals and looking for improper variations that might suggest a mistake had been made at an earlier point in the data entry. McMahan described some of Boddy's duties as "double-check[ing] your kid's homework" (id. at p. 79).

Boddy performed some duties beyond data entry. She was responsible for verifying sales tax was calculated properly in the sales-and-use tax return for transactions in Louisiana (id. at p. 101). Software used by Defendants would calculate the tax, but she would perform an audit to ensure the software made no mistakes (id. at p. 102). Additionally, Boddy would review budgetssubmitted by other departments, and could inquire as to inconsistencies or odd portions of the budget, but she did not have the authority to do more than seek clarification (id. at p. 96). Boddy could reclassify expenditures to capital assets but it would require McMahan's approval (Id. at p. 142). She did not have discretion to classify whether an item was an expense or fixed asset (id. at p. 71). Boddy was also "Sarbanes-Oxley Coordinator" ("SOX Coordinator"), which involved ensuring that each account receivable matched with an actual customer and that bills of lading were attached to invoices (id. at pp. 39-41). She would make sure cash disbursements were signed by managers and would perform records retention (id. at pp. 25, 42, 43).

During the course of her employment, Boddy was expected to work later than 5:00 p.m. if necessary, and would take work home on the weekends and at night (Court File No. 46-2, Boddy Dep., p. 92, 95), (Court File No. 52-3, McMahan Dep., p. 150). Her starting salary was $45,000 a year and increased during her employment (Court File No. 40-2, Dec. Brooks, Ex. A). On May 11, 2011, Boddy filed a complaint with this court alleging she was misclassified as an exempt employee and not compensated for overtime.

On May 17, 2011, Boddy applied for the position of Assistant Controller (Court File No. 46-1, McMahan Dep., p. 191). McMahan created the position because she wanted to focus on management decisions rather than "grunt work"(id. at p. 140). McMahan does not have a license as a CPA, but she included a CPA license preference for the new position. Although McMahan was aware Boddy desired the position (id. at p. 190), Brian Peaden ("Peaden") from another Astec Industries subsidiary was hired for the position. McMahan explained she did not hire Boddy for the position because she was not qualified. McMahan stated she "asked her to-to go above and beyond her normal duties to try to learn all of the accounting . . . . To venture outside of just her area of thegeneral ledger and to learn payroll and to learn [Accounts Payable], to learn [Accounts Receivable], to learn the cost system" (id. at p. 196). According to McMahan, Boddy "never made any attempt" (id.). McMahan also expressed concerns about Boddy's performance, including accounting errors (Court File No. 40-4, McMahan Dep., pp. 201, 205). McMahan also noted Boddy's SOX documentation was significantly late at one point (id. at p. 207). David Silvious, Robin Leffew, and McMahan, Astec management officials who selected the Assistant Controller, also described a substandard interview with Boddy, while Peaden apparently did quite well during his interview (Court File Nos. 42, 44, 45). Although Peaden did not have an active CPA license, he had previously obtained a license, and the interviewers believed he displayed the knowledge level they desired for the position.

After Boddy was passed over for the Assistant Controller position, she filed an amended complaint alleging retaliation for her initial claim of misclassification (Court File No. 15). During discovery for this case, Astec learned Boddy kept a personal external hard drive at her home containing work files. Boddy claims she kept this hard drive to prevent losing her work, as Astec did not regularly back up employee computers (Court File No. 40-5, Boddy Dep., pp. 108-09). She claims she merely backed up her C: Drive everyday so she would be able to access documents from home or recover documents if her computer crashed and the documents were lost (Court File No. 52-1, 2d Boddy Dep., pp. 215-19). When this hard drive was discovered by Defendants, they reviewed the information Boddy was storing. Defendants claim the information was expansive and meticulously organized over a period of four years, including files no longer on Plaintiff's C: Drive (Court File Nos. 40-2, 40-3, Decs. Brooks, McMahan). Defendants contend the information located on Boddy's hard drive was confidential, but Boddy disputes this point.

Boddy and McMahan disagree whether McMahan permitted Boddy to maintain the backup system. Boddy claims she explicitly obtained permission to backup her work, using a thumb drive or external hard drive (Court File No. 52-8, Dec. Boddy), but McMahan claims she never gave Boddy permission...