Craig v. Bridges Bros. Trucking LLC

• Decision Date: 19 May 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15–3396.,15–3396.
• Citation: 823 F.3d 382
• Parties: Donna CRAIG, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. BRIDGES BROS. TRUCKING LLC; Michael Bridges, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

823 F.3d 382

Donna CRAIG, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.BRIDGES BROS. TRUCKING LLC; Michael Bridges, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 15–3396.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: Dec. 10, 2015.

Decided and Filed: May 19, 2016.

ARGUED: Andrew Biller, Markovits, Stock & Demarco, LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Daniel J. Clark, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Andrew Biller, Markovits, Stock & Demarco, LLC, Columbus, Ohio, Laren Knoll, The Knoll Law Firm, LLC, Dublin, Ohio, for Appellant. Daniel J. Clark, James W. Pauley, III, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

Before: GRIFFIN and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; CLELAND, District Judge.^*

OPINION

CLELAND

, District Judge.

Donna Craig sued her former employer, Bridges Brothers Trucking, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201

–219, seeking compensation for some four years' worth of unpaid overtime work. She had been Bridges Brothers' bookkeeper. Both parties moved for summary judgment on the record established pretrial, and the district court ruled in favor of the employer, holding that by “miscalculating” her own overtime pay rate, Craig had “failed to follow the reasonable time reporting procedures established by [the employer] and ... therefore thwarted its ability to comply with the FLSA.” The principal questions presented in this appeal are how an employer might acquire at least constructive knowledge of its employee's overtime hours, and—as a matter of fact—whether such knowledge is attributable to Bridges Brothers here. Concerning such factual determinations there exist several material, disputed issues that require resolution at trial. The district court's grant of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment will be reversed, while its denial of Plaintiff's Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment will be affirmed.¹

I.

In October 2010, Plaintiff/Appellant Donna Craig was hired as a bookkeeper for Defendant/Appellee Bridges Brothers Trucking, LLC. In this capacity, she was responsible for processing the company's payroll, invoicing, billing, and reconciling bank statements. These tasks frequently consumed more than forty hours in a week. She recorded excess hours in fifty-four of the ninety-five weeks she was a Bridges Brothers employee. This was especially pronounced during her first year of employment, during which she put in overtime during thirty-seven of her first fifty-two weeks—over seventy percent of the time. In total, over the course of her employment, Craig worked nearly five hundred overtime hours. Nevertheless, with the exception of a single overtime hour near the end of her tenure, she was never paid at the legally mandated rate of time-and-a-half for these additional hours of work, but instead received only her “straight time” wage of $17.50 per hour. In fact, during some weeks, she worked dozens of additional hours from home at night or on the weekends, but did not charge Bridges Brothers anything. The company eventually hired another person to act as Craig's assistant, and by doing so alleviated her need to so consistently work overtime.

The parties disagree about whether Craig knew that the law required Bridges Brothers to pay any and all employees who worked over forty hours a week overtime wages. Specifically, the parties disagree about the import of a portion of Craig's deposition:

Q. ... When you were an employee of Bridges Bros. And you were processing payroll, did you—are you aware of employees being paid overtime compensation?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know which employees of the company received overtime compensation?

A. Primarily union employees and one mechanic.

Q. And do you know why those employees received overtime compensation?

A. Union requires it.

Q. Do you have any other circumstances where you're aware of an employee receiving overtime compensation?

A. The one mechanic requested his overtime.

Q. And he was not a union employee?

A. Correct.

...

Q. How did you know to pay those employees overtime compensation?

A. I was directed by Michael Bridges.

(Dkt. 24–1, Pg. ID 414–15.) Craig cites this passage as evidence that Mr. Bridges indicated that only a small group of employees—not including her—were eligible for time-and-half. Conversely, Bridges Brothers cites the same passage to support the proposition that Craig paid overtime to other people, and therefore should have known that she was eligible for it as well.

Bridges Brothers required all of its employees, including Craig, to create detailed time sheets documenting their hours each week. At first, these time sheets needed to include only the number of hours the employee worked each day and their rate of pay. However, beginning in April 2011, Craig was also required to list the tasks she performed each day. Mr. Bridges, the company's owner, claims these policies were put in place so he could “keep track of [Craig's] time.” (Dkt. # 24–2, Pg. ID 569.)

As bookkeeper, Craig was charged with collecting the time sheets from Bridges Brothers' other employees and entering the data (including her own) into the payroll software each week. She then gave all of the time sheets to Mr. Bridges, along with a payroll summary, for his review and approval. No one got paid until Mr. Bridges approved the report. Nevertheless, Mr. Bridges insists that he never looked at the time sheets “in any detail,” but instead relied on the summary report alone. (Dkt. # 24–2, Pg. ID 569.) As long as the total payroll was within the range expected by Mr. Bridges, then it was approved, and Craig would finalize the payroll process in the computer.

Mr. Bridges, therefore, claims that he was completely unaware that Craig was working overtime. Craig disputes this, pointing to several pieces of evidence in addition to her time sheets which, if believed, may suggest that Mr. Bridges and his company were aware that she was working extra hours. First, in her deposition, Craig claimed that on at least one occasion she verbally informed Mr. Bridges that she was taking work home to complete on the weekends. Second, Mr. Bridges' son admitted in his deposition that he did notice Craig working overtime hours, and on June 1, 2011, emailed his father encouraging him to cap Craig's hours to forty per week for the rest of the month. Later, in an affidavit, he asserted this email had nothing to do with overtime hours, but instead he was merely concerned that his father was being forced to come into the office on the weekends in order to supervise Craig.

Eventually, Craig realized that she was being underpaid. She claims that her understanding of overtime law “became clearer as [Bridges Bros.] added union employees and started paying overtime to other individuals.” (Dkt. 24–1, Pg. ID 418.) When Mr. Bridges suggested cutting Craig's assistant, Craig confronted him, stating “I had finally gotten to where I didn't have to work over 40 hours a week by utilizing the assistant, that if we cut him, I'd have to go back to working more than 40 hours a week and I'd like to be compensated at overtime pay.” (Id. at Pg. ID 418.) Craig did not believe that her request was well received, claiming that he told her that she could keep her assistant, but that she needed to inform him if she felt she needed to work overtime in the future.

That very week, Craig worked 41.5 hours. Craig noted the overtime on her time sheet, but wrote “move 1.5 hours to next week to stay under 40.” (Dkt. 27–12, Pg. ID 1312.) Just under one month later, during the week of July 20, 2012, Craig again worked forty-one hours. For the first and only time during her tenure at Bridges Brothers, she recorded a time-and-a-half pay rate for this extra hour on her time sheet. And for the first and only time during her tenure at Bridges Brothers, she was paid a time-and-a-half pay rate for her overtime. Five days later, Bridges Brothers posted an advertisement for Craig's job on Craigslist. Shortly thereafter, she was terminated.

On October 16, 2012, Craig filed this lawsuit, seeking unpaid overtime wages and damages for other issues not currently on appeal. Bridges Brothers then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts. Craig responded in kind, filing her own Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment. On March 12, 2015, the district court granted Bridges Brothers' motion, and denied Craig's. Craig subsequently filed this timely appeal.

II.

We review a trial court's grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A. AFL–CIO v. Dorn Sprinkler Co., 669 F.3d 790, 793 (6th Cir.2012)

. When reviewing a summary judgment order, we must “determine whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Parrett v. Am. Ship Bldg. Co., 990 F.2d 854, 858 (6th Cir.1993) (internal quotations omitted). “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge....” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Therefore, at this stage of litigation, the “evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158–59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970) ).

The standards upon which we evaluate motions for summary judgment do not change when, as here, “both parties seek to resolve [the] case through the vehicle of cross-motions for summary judgment.” Taft Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 929 F.2d 240, 248 (6th Cir.1991)

.

The fact that both parties have moved for summary judgment does not mean that the court must grant judgment as a matter of law for one side or the other; summary judgment in favor of either party is not proper if disputes remain as to material facts. Rather, the court must evaluate each party's motion on its own merits,

...