Donovan v. Schoolhouse Four, Inc.

• Decision Date: 12 September 1983
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 81-0314-B.
• Citation: 573 F. Supp. 185
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
• Parties: Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. SCHOOLHOUSE FOUR, INC., et al., Defendants.

573 F. Supp. 185

Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. SCHOOLHOUSE FOUR, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 81-0314-B.

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Big Stone Gap Division.

September 12, 1983.

Marshall H. Harris, Joan M. Roller, Philadelphia, Pa., Francis X. Lilly, John P. Alderman, Roanoke, Va., for plaintiff.

Carl E. McAfee, Norton, Va., Clyde Montgomery, Inglewood, Cal., for defendants.

Anthony Trigiana, pro se.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

MICHAEL, District Judge.

This case came on to be tried before the court without a jury on August 2 and 3, 1983. After considering the pleadings, the evidence, and the arguments of counsel, the court now files its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Findings of Fact

1. Defendant Schoolhouse Four, Inc. ("Schoolhouse Four") is, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a corporation with an office and place of business located at Ewing and Blackwater, Virginia. Schoolhouse Four manufactures clothing. Defendant Timothy McAfee, although listed as President of Schoolhouse Four, took no role whatsoever in the management of Schoolhouse Four at the relevant time involved in this lawsuit. Consequently, he was dismissed as a party defendant at the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief. Defendant Anthony Trigiani, labeled a "consultant" to Schoolhouse Four, actively participated in the daily activities of Schoolhouse Four, visiting the Ewing plant on a regular basis and making recommendations not only as to its manufacturing activities but also as to firing of employees. Defendant Clyde Montgomery was plant manager of the Ewing facility of Schoolhouse Four. Montgomery actively managed, supervised, and directed the operations and personnel of the Ewing plant. The annual dollar volume of Schoolhouse Four at all times during the period 1978 to date has been well in excess of $250,000. Goods were sold to businesses in New York, Tennessee, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

2. Geraldine Clouse, Janice Clouse Hensley, Ethel Chadwell, Janet Harris Smith, Ethel Hall, Cheryl Skidmore Williams, Charlotte Scott, and Janice Martin were employed at the Ewing plant of Schoolhouse Four as sewing machine operators before and during October 1978. Prior to October 1978, in the Fall of 1976, these eight women worked in this same plant, then operated under the corporate name Miss Virginia, Inc. Shortly after Miss Virginia, Inc. shut its doors in the fall of 1976, the Ewing plant was bought by Schoolhouse Four. Operations soon resumed at the plant with the eight women performing the same jobs for Schoolhouse Four that they had performed for Miss Virginia, Inc.

3. Miss Virginia, Inc. failed to pay a number of its employees, including the eight women named in paragraph 2 supra, for the last week to two weeks of its operation.

4. On advice of Thomas Rasnic, an attorney in Jonesville, Virginia, a number of former employees of Miss Virginia, Inc., including the eight women named in paragraph 2 supra, filed suit in the Circuit Court for Lee County on May 24, 1978, against Schoolhouse Four, Anthony Trigiani, and Pascal Dean for the failure of Miss Virginia, Inc. to pay them wages for the last week to two weeks of operation of Miss Virginia, Inc. This suit was filed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Mr. Rasnic's theory was that an officer, shareholder, or successor corporation is liable for the wages of a defunct corporation. The court finds that this lawsuit was filed with probable cause and was not frivolous.

5. A summons was issued on October 18, 1978, for a deposition of the eight women named in paragraph 2 supra in connection with this Lee County lawsuit. This deposition was to be held in the office of Mr. Rasnic on October 19, 1978.

6. On October 18, 1978, Clyde Montgomery called into his office the eight women scheduled for the deposition the next day. He told them that if they testified the next day their jobs would be in jeopardy.

7. Present at the deposition on October 19, 1978, were the eight women named in paragraph 2 supra, Mr. Rasnic and his secretary/receptionist Gailya Rasnic, Anthony Trigiani and his attorney Mr. Carl McAfee, and the court reporter. Charlotte Scott was deposed first. At the conclusion of her testimony, Mr. Trigiani left the deposition room, went to Mrs. Rasnic's phone, dialed a number, and said in a voice loud enough to be heard by all the women in the waiting room, "Charlotte Scott is no longer employed at Schoolhouse Four". After all the women had testified,¹ Mr. Trigiani again used the office phone, saying this time, "Fire them all".

8. The eight women named in paragraph 2 supra returned to the Ewing plant after the deposition. At the plant, Clyde Montgomery told each one that she was fired. He did not let them pick up their personal belongings at their workstations, but instead sent a supervisor to pick up their belongings.

9. While the eight women named in paragraph 2 supra were eventually able to find replacement employment, they remained without jobs for periods ranging from one week to more than nine months. In addition, several of the women were required to incur additional travel costs to their new jobs located a greater distance from their homes than the Ewing Schoolhouse Four plant. The court heard no evidence which asserted that any of the eight women were less than diligent in finding replacement jobs.

10. The difference between what Ethel Chadwell would have earned at Schoolhouse Four had she not been fired on October 19, 1978, and what she actually earned at her replacement job, plus her extra travel costs incurred, is $650.68.

11. The difference between what Geraldine Clouse would have earned at Schoolhouse Four had she not been fired on October 19, 1978, and what she actually earned at her replacement job, plus her extra travel costs incurred, is $8,237.20.

12. The difference between what Ethel Hall would have earned at Schoolhouse Four had she not been fired on October 19, 1978, and what she actually earned at her replacement job, plus her extra travel costs incurred, is $1,474.80².

13. The difference between what Janice Clouse Hensley would have earned at Schoolhouse Four had she not been fired on October 19, 1978, and what she actually earned at her replacement job, plus her extra travel costs incurred, is $5,413.90.

14. The difference between what Janice Martin would have earned at Schoolhouse Four until December 30, 1978, when she quit her replacement job and moved to Maryland, had she not been fired on October 19, 1978, and what she actually earned at her replacement job, plus her extra travel costs incurred, is $477.04.

15. The difference between what Charlotte Scott would have earned at Schoolhouse Four had she not been fired on October 19, 1978, and what she actually earned at her replacement job, plus her extra travel costs incurred, is $969.68³.

16. The difference between what Cheryl Skidmore Williams would have earned at Schoolhouse Four had she not been fired on October 19, 1978, and what she actually earned at her replacement job, plus her extra travel costs incurred, is $513.20.

17. Janet Harris Smith, had she not been fired on October 19, 1978, would have earned $388.80 at Schoolhouse Four until she was physically unable to work after November 18, 1978.

Conclusions of Law

1. This court has jurisdiction based on Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 217.

2. Plaintiff has made out a clear case of retaliatory firing under 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). This provision states that "it shall be unlawful for any person

(3) to discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding ..."

Schoolhouse Four, through its agent Clyde Montgomery, on October 18, 1978, threatened the eight women by warning them that their jobs would be in jeopardy if they testified at a deposition scheduled in a lawsuit they had filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover backpay. This threat was then carried out by Mr. Trigiani and Mr. Montgomery the next day after the depositions of the women. The prohibitions of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) are directed to "any person". Furthermore, based on its volume of business in interstate commerce, Schoolhouse Four is subject to all provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act under 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1) as an "enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce".

Defendants' conduct in first threatening and then discharging the eight women stands as a clear violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Seven of the eight were fired because they had filed suit under the Act for lost wages. The eighth, Cheryl Skidmore Williams, was fired because she was about to file suit under the Act.⁴

The Supreme Court stated in Mitchell v. De Mario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.S. 288, 292-93, 80 S.Ct. 332, 335-36, 4 L.Ed.2d 323 (1960):

For it needs no argument to show that fear of economic retaliation might often operate to induce aggrieved employees quietly to accept substandard conditions. ...

In this context, the significance of reimbursement of lost wages becomes apparent. To an employee considering an attempt to secure his just deserts under the Act, the value of such an effort may pale when set against the prospect of discharge and the total loss of wages for the indeterminate period necessary to seek and obtain reinstatement. Resort to statutory remedies might thus often take on the character of a calculated risk, with restitution of partial deficiencies in wages due for past work perhaps obtainable only at the cost of irremediable entire loss of pay for an unpredictable period. Faced with such alternatives, the employees understandably might decide that matters had best be left as the

...