Gilchrist v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp.

Decision Date15 December 2021
Docket NumberCAUSE NO. 1:16-CV-8-LY
Citation575 F.Supp.3d 761
Parties John GILCHRIST and Byron Brockman, Plaintiffs, v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

Jack Siegel, Siegel Law Group PLLC, J. Derek Braziel, Braziel Dixon, LLP, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Geoffrey A. Mitchell, Robert Peter Lombardi, Samuel Zurik, III, The Kullman Firm, P.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant.

INITIAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

LEE YEAKEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the court is the above-styled and numbered cause. On August 13, 2018, the court called the case for bench trial. Plaintiffs appeared in person and by attorney. Defendant appeared through its corporate representative and by attorney. The trial concluded August 15, 2018, and the parties submitted post-trial briefing. Having carefully considered the briefing, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, exhibits, arguments of counsel, applicable law, and entire case file, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.1

I. Jurisdiction

The court has jurisdiction over this cause because Plaintiffs John Gilchrist and Byron Brockman's claims arise under the laws of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

II. Background

The Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") requires employers to provide overtime compensation to employees who work over 40 hours in a workweek. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant Schlumberger Technology Corporation ("Schlumberger"). Schlumberger classified Plaintiffs as exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements and did not pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation. Plaintiffs sue Schlumberger, alleging misclassification and seeking unpaid overtime pay, liquidated damages, court costs, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

The central dispute in this case is whether Plaintiffs performed the types of job duties that warrant an FLSA exemption. Generally, an employee's role must meet three conditions to qualify for an exemption: (1) the employee must meet certain minimum income thresholds, (2) the employee must be paid on a "salary basis," and (3) the employee must perform certain executive, administrative, or professional duties. Hewitt v. Helix Energy Sols. Grp., Inc. , 15 F.4th 289, 290-91 (5th Cir. 2021). A separate FLSA exemption exists for a "highly compensated employee" who regularly performs at least one executive, administrative, or professional duty. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.601. The parties stipulate that Schlumberger paid Plaintiffs guaranteed salaries meeting the minimum income thresholds. The parties also stipulate that Schlumberger paid Plaintiffs on a "salary basis." The parties disagree, however, on whether Plaintiffs’ work involved certain administrative or executive duties that would exempt Plaintiffs from the FLSA's overtime-pay requirements.2 Because this dispute centers around Plaintiffs’ job duties, the court will begin by discussing Plaintiffs’ daily tasks and responsibilities during their employment with Schlumberger.

A. Plaintiff John Gilchrist

Gilchrist's employment with Schlumberger began June 18, 2012, and ended March 25, 2015. The relevant period of Gilchrist's employment is January 7, 2014, through March 25, 2015.3 Gilchrist worked as a Measurements-While-Drilling Field Specialist out of Midland, Texas.

B. Plaintiff Byron Brockman

Brockman's employment with Schlumberger began June 16, 2013, and ended December 14, 2015. The relevant period of Brockman's employment is January 7, 2014, through December 14, 2015. Brockman worked as a Measurements-While-Drilling Field Specialist out of Conway, Arkansas.

Both Plaintiffs testified at trial and were thoroughly cross examined. The court had ample opportunity to observe and evaluate their credibility and demeanor. The court finds Plaintiffs’ testimony credible in all respects.

C. Field Specialist Job Duties

Schlumberger provides oilfield services to exploration and development clients. Plaintiffs’ role as Field Specialists centered around "measurements-while-drilling" services, which gave Schlumberger's clients "downhole" information such as drilling trajectory, pressure, and temperature. Schlumberger's clients used these measurements to determine how to continue drilling and how to best produce hydrocarbons.

Plaintiffs generally worked "on location," meaning at the site where oil and gas drilling occurs. Plaintiffs’ work centered around the oil "rig"—the structure used to drill a wellbore. Other types of employees that worked on location included "directional drillers" (who steer the drilling along a predetermined path), "drillers" (who supervise the rig crew), "roughnecks" (who work on the rig while drilling occurs), and the "company man" (who leads and supervises the entire operation). The Field Specialist position did not require formal education beyond a high-school diploma, but Schlumberger required in-classroom and on-the-job training for new hires.

Upon arriving on location, Plaintiffs would begin with the process of "rigging up." Rigging up first involved gathering the necessary tools, wires, and cables to be used for downhole measurements. Plaintiffs connected the various cables from computers in an on-site trailer office (the "shack") to sensors on the drilling equipment. Plaintiffs also set up the software needed to run the measurements. Depending on the job site and other factors such as weather, rigging up took between three to six hours. Plaintiffs periodically repeated this process when components of the measuring tool or drilling equipment broke or required adjustment.

After Plaintiffs successfully rigged up the measuring tool, they would return to the shack to monitor the computers for incoming measurement data. Sensors on the downhole equipment sent pulses through the cables to computers in the shack. The computers used various software programs to decode the downhole data and present it to Plaintiffs for review. The computer system generated periodic "surveys" containing different downhole measurements and data points. When the system generated a survey, the computers displayed the information in green or in red. A green survey indicated that the data aligned with Schlumberger's "field acceptance criteria," which was a set of pre-determined numbers and ranges built into the software that indicated whether a survey was "good" (green) or "bad" (red). If the survey was green, Plaintiffs accepted the data and shared the information with the directional driller, who used the information to guide and steer the drill along the drilling path. If the survey was red, Plaintiffs notified the directional driller and the employees controlling the rig equipment, who would run the survey again. If additional surveys continued to come back red, Plaintiffs would try several basic fixes and then contact employees in Schlumberger's off-site "Operations Support Center," who would work to solve the problem. The Operations Support Center would take a variety of actions, including requesting files and screenshots from Plaintiffs, communicating with Plaintiffs by phone or by messaging software, and taking remote control of Plaintiffs’ computers.

Plaintiffs generally worked in 12-hour shifts while on location, and each of Plaintiffs’ job assignments lasted between two to six weeks. Every shift involved between 15 to 50 surveys. Plaintiffs periodically sent reports with information from the surveys to the directional driller and to the client. Plaintiffs also monitored a continuous information log that displayed downhole data on pressure, temperature, vibrations, radioactive activity, and other parameters.

In addition to the job duties surrounding the computer system in the shack, Plaintiffs occasionally attended safety meetings, worked with Field Specialist trainees, and generated reports and forms for Schlumberger and its clients. Plaintiffs generally did not provide input in the safety meetings, and most job-specific safety tasks involved informal discussions between employees. When a Plaintiff worked with a trainee, the trainee shadowed and observed the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not generally provide formal instruction. Plaintiffs did not directly participate in Schlumberger's hiring and firing decisions but would fill out paperwork on a trainee's performance and give input on a trainee when asked. Gilchrist also prepared a state-required document for his job assignments using information from the surveys. Gilchrist would submit the document to Schlumberger, and a higher-level employee would review, sign, and file the document with the Texas Railroad Commission.

At the end of each job assignment (once the well reached "total depth"), Plaintiffs would begin the "rigging down" process. Rigging down required Plaintiffs to complete a final survey, remove the various cables and tools from the rig, and pack up the equipment. After successfully rigging down the well, Plaintiffs gathered information from the computer system about the well site, sent various reports to the Operations Support Center for final review, and then compiled the information for a final end-of-well information packet for Schlumberger's client. Plaintiffs then received information from their supervisor about their next job assignment and repeated the process.

D. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed this action on January 7, 2016, alleging that Schlumberger willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime wages in accordance with the FLSA. Schlumberger timely answered, asserting a variety of affirmative defenses and arguing that it properly classified Plaintiffs as exempt.

Prior to trial, the court granted a motion for summary judgment by Schlumberger on the issue of willfulness, finding that Plaintiffs failed to establish that Schlumberger willfully misclassified Plaintiffs as exempt.

Following trial, Plaintiffs moved to reopen the evidence and discovery, seeking additional information that came...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT