Douglas v. First Student, Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 November 2011
• Docket Number: No. 11-361,11-361
• Parties: NATE DOUGLAS, THOMAS DERICO, LISA SMITH, and LEROY ROBINSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PETITIONERS, v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., RESPONDENT
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

NATE DOUGLAS, THOMAS DERICO, LISA SMITH, and LEROY ROBINSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PETITIONERS,
v.
FIRST STUDENT, INC., RESPONDENT

No. 11-361

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Dated: November 3, 2011
Dated: November 23, 2011

CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
ARKANSAS, NO. 4:09CV00652,
HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT,
JUDGE,

CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED.
JIM GUNTER, Associate Justice

This case involves a question or Arkansas law certified to this court by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in accordance with our Supreme Court Rule 6-8 (2011). This court accepted certification on April 21, 2011, and framed the certified question as follows: what is the statute of limitations for causes of action involving a violation of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 11-4-201 et seq.? See Douglas v. First Student, Inc., 2011 Ark. 172 (per curiam). Under our Supreme Court Rule 6-8(c)(l), this court has the authority to reformulate a certified question. See Hempstead Cnty. Hunting Club, Inc. v. Sw. Elec. Power Co., 2011 Ark. 234, ___ S.W.3d ___. In this instance, after further review, we have determined that the more specific question being asked is as follows: what is the appropriate statute oflimitations for a private cause of action pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § ll-4-218(e) (Supp. 2011)?

Petitioners, Nate Douglas, Thomas Derico, Lisa Smith, and Leroy Robinson,

Page 2

individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, filed a class-action complaint in federal district court on July 31, 2009, alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Petitioners were all employed by Respondent First Student, Inc., as school-bus drivers or dispatchers operating in the Little Rock public school system and claimed that respondent violated the AMWA by failing to compensate them for regular and overtime wages in weeks in which they worked more than forty hours. Petitioners initially sought to recover under the AMWA for a period beginning on August 1, 2006, which was three years prior to the filing of the complaint. On March 22, 2011, Petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, seeking to alter their complaint to recover under the AMWA for a five-year period beginning on July 31, 2004. Respondent opposed the motion, contending that an amendment to the complaint would be futile because petitioners' AMWA claims were governed by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105. On April 1, 2011, the district court certified the question of what the appropriate statute of limitations was for a violation of the AMWA to this court.

Petitioners' claim that respondent violated the AMWA is predicated on the obligation contained in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-211 (Repl. 2002 & Supp. 2011), that an employer pay one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty per week. Prior to October 2006, only the director of the Arkansas Department of Labor had authority to recover overtime wages under the AMWA through legal action. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-218(d) (Repl. 2002). Effective October 1, 2006, the General Assembly amended the

Page 3

AMWA to add a private cause of action for an employee to recover overtime wages. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-218(e) (Supp. 2011). However, the statute does not expressly provide for a statute of limitations for such private actions.

Petitioners assert that the proper statute of limitations for private actions brought in accordance with § 11-4-218(e) is five years based on the catch-all statute-of-limitations provision found in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-115 (Repl. 2005). In support of that position, they cite to our holding in Miller Brewing Co. v. Roleson, 365 Ark. 38, 223 S.W.3d 806 (2006). Respondent counters that a long line of cases from this court prior to Miller Brewing establish that the three-year statute of limitations provided in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105 (Repl. 2005), is applicable...