Ex parte King
| Decision Date | 04 June 1993 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | 126 Lab.Cas. P 33,016, 95 Ed. Law Rep. 799, 1 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 781 Ex parte Bernadine KING, et al. (Re ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY v. Bernadine KING, et al.) 1910124. |
Patrick W. Richardson, Stuart E. Smith and J. Michael Broom of Bell Richardson, P.A. and John A. Wilmer of Wilmer & Shepard, P.A., Huntsville, for petitioners.
Roscoe O. Roberts, Jr., Huntsville, and Macbeth Wagnon, Jr. of Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Birmingham, for respondent.
This case involves certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-19 (1988), and the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) and § 260 (1988), as they apply to the position of dormitory counselor at Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University ("Alabama A & M"). The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. 643 So.2d 1358. We granted certiorari review, and we now reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remand the cause.
The plaintiffs were employed as residence hall counselors at Alabama A & M. In that position, they performed a variety of duties to assist the resident students, such as distributing mail, discussing problems, and maintaining order in the dormitory. The counselors were salaried employees and received a monthly check based on a 40-hour workweek. It was undisputed, however, that the plaintiffs' actual work week was closer to 60 hours.
In 1986, two of the employees complained to university officials about being underpaid for the overtime hours they had worked, and requested overtime pay. Alabama A & M's in-house counsel responded, stating that the employees met the criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 541.2(e)(2) (1983), which provides that an employee making at least $250 per week comes under the administrative exemption 1 if (1) her "primary duties" consist of performing work "directly related to management policies or general business operations" of her employer, and (2) these tasks "include work requiring the exercise of discretion and independent judgment." Alabama A & M denied the request for overtime pay.
Nine present and former employees of Alabama A & M sued Alabama A & M, claiming that they were entitled to overtime pay under the FSLA for all time worked over 40 hours per week during their employment.
Before trial, two of the original plaintiffs withdrew from the action and an additional residence hall counselor moved to intervene, without opposition from Alabama A & M.
At the conclusion of the trial, the case was submitted to the jury, with three special interrogatories:
The jury returned a verdict against Alabama A & M on all three questions. The trial judge awarded attorney fees in the amount of $185,998.25 to the employees' counsel, and also granted the employees' motion for liquidated damages pursuant to the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 260 (1988). The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in its instruction on the question of a willful violation of the FLSA.
We must first determine whether the Court of Civil Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal in this case. Alabama A & M initially appealed the trial court's judgment to this Court, which transferred it to the Court of Civil Appeals, sua sponte. The petitioners argue that the transfer to the Court of Civil Appeals violated § 12-3-10, Ala.Code 1975, because, they contend, the appeal did not involve a decision, rule, or regulation of an administrative agency.
Nontort cases brought by non faculty employees against public schools have been considered "administrative" for purposes of appellate jurisdiction in the Court of Civil Appeals. See Breazeale v. Board of Trustees of the University of South Alabama, 575 So.2d 1126 (Ala.Civ.App.1991). Therefore, the case was properly transferred and submitted to the Court of Civil Appeals.
The substantive issue here deals with the trial court's supplemental jury charge and whether the parties agreed to the supplemental charge defining the term "reckless disregard," and whether Alabama A & M was estopped from raising any error in this regard on the appeal.
The jury requested a supplemental charge on the definitions of "willfulness" and "reckless disregard." The trial court read a supplemental charge, the language of which was taken from Glenn v. General Motors Corp., 658 F.Supp. 918 (N.D.Ala.1986), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 841 F.2d 1567, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948, 109 S.Ct. 378, 102 L.Ed.2d 367 (1988).
It is undisputed that before the court gave the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. Knight
...). The doctrine of invited error 'provides that a party may not complain of error into which he has led the court.' Ex parte King, 643 So.2d 1364, 1366 (Ala.1993). In other words, '[a] party cannot win a reversal on an error that party has invited the trial court to commit.' Neal v. Neal, 8......
-
Neal v. Neal
...that would affect the judgment. A party cannot win a reversal on an error that party has invited the trial court to commit. Ex parte King, 643 So.2d 1364 (Ala.1993), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Humphres, 293 Ala. 413, 304 So.2d 573 (1974), and Thompson v. Magic City Trucking Service, ......
-
Mobile Infirmary Medical Center v. Hodgen
..."That doctrine [of invited error] provides that a party may not complain of error into which he has led the court." Ex parte King, 643 So.2d 1364, 1366 (Ala.1993). "A party cannot win a reversal on an error that party has invited the trial court to commit." Neal v. Neal, 856 So.2d 766, 784 ......
-
Todd v. State
...). ‘That doctrine [of invited error] provides that a party may not complain of error into which he has led the court.’ Ex parte King, 643 So. 2d 1364, 1366 (Ala. 1993). ‘A party cannot win a reversal on an error that party has invited the trial court to commit.’ Neal v. Neal, 856 So. 2d 766......