Monroe v. Fts U.S. Llc

• Decision Date: 07 February 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:08–cv–2100.
• Citation: 763 F.Supp.2d 979
• Parties: Edward MONROE, Fabian Moore, and Timothy Williams, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs,v.FTS USA, LLC, and UniTek USA, LLC, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

763 F.Supp.2d 979

Edward MONROE, Fabian Moore, and Timothy Williams, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs,

v.FTS USA, LLC, and UniTek USA, LLC, Defendants.

Case No. 2:08–cv–2100.

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division.

Feb. 7, 2011.

Donald A. Donati, William B. Ryan, Bryce William Ashby, Donati Law Firm LLP, Memphis, TN, Donald H. Nichols, Paul J. Lukas, Rachhana T. Srey, Robert L. Schug, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, San Francisco, CA, Thomas Franklin Donaldson, Jr., Thomas F. Donaldson, Jr., Attorney at Law, Marion, AR, for Plaintiffs.Colin D. Dougherty, Eric J. Bronstein, Kathyrn M. Schilling, Raymond J. Santarelli, Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski, PC, Blue Bell, PA, Saul C. Belz, Glankler Brown, PLLC, Memphis, TN, for Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendants FTS USA, LLC (“FTS”) and UniTek USA, LLC's (“UniTek”) ¹ April 1, 2010 motion to decertify the plaintiff class, which now comprises over 300 individuals either currently or formerly employed by Defendants as cable installation technicians. (D.E. # 193.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay them proper overtime compensation in accordance with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA” or “Act”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. Also before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment filed April 1, 2010, seeking dismissal of all claims pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (D.E. # 194.) On May 5, 2010, Plaintiffs responded in opposition to Defendants' motions to decertify and for summary judgment, and with leave of court, Defendants filed replies in support of both motions on May 21, 2010.

In their motion to decertify, Defendants argue that the members of the plaintiff class present claims that are radically different from one another, rendering adjudication of their claims on a classwide basis inappropriate. In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants contend that, as a matter of law, (1) the evidence supporting Plaintiffs' claims is insufficient to support a finding that Plaintiffs are entitled to damages; (2) Plaintiffs have failed to offer a valid method by which to establish damages on a classwide basis; and (3) the evidence in the record before the Court is insufficient to support a finding that Defendants willfully violated the FLSA. Defendants also seek summary judgment on the claims of those Plaintiffs as to whom no discovery was taken—a group that includes the vast majority of the plaintiff class members.²

For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' claims are substantially similar and therefore appropriate for resolution on a classwide basis. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to decertify the class. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs have offered sufficient evidence from which the finder of fact may reasonably award damages, that Plaintiffs' damages may be calculated on a representative basis for the entire class, that disputed issues of material fact exist regarding the question of Defendants' willfulness, and that dismissal of claims brought by those class members as to whom no discovery was taken is inappropriate. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED as inappropriate.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant FTS is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, and an additional corporate office in Dallas, Texas. (Defs.' Statement of Undisputed Facts (“Defs.' SOF”) ¶¶ 1–2; Pls.' Response to Defs.' Statement of Facts (“Pls.' Response to SOF”) ¶¶ 1–2.) ³ Defendant UniTek, also a Delaware limited liability company with corporate offices in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, is the parent company of FTS. (Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 3–4; Pls.' Response to SOF ¶¶ 3–4.) FTS performs cable installation services in several states, including Tennessee, under contracts with cable television providers—specifically, Cox Cable Communications, Charter, Time Warner, Brighthouse, and Comcast. (Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 3–4; Pls.' Response to SOF ¶¶ 3–4.) FTS operates field offices (also called profit centers) in the geographic areas it services. (Defs.' SOF ¶ 8; Pls.' Response to SOF ¶ 8.) FTS maintains three types of employees in its field offices: (1) installation technicians, who perform services at a cable subscriber's home; (2) supervisors, who manage the installation technicians; and (3) project managers, who are responsible for the operations of the field office. (Defs.' SOF ¶ 9; Pls.' Response to SOF ¶ 9.)

Plaintiffs are current and former cable installation technicians employed by Defendants and classified as non-exempt for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act. (Defs.' SOF ¶ 10; Pls.' Response to SOF ¶ 10.) Defendants compensate technicians on a “piece-rate” system, whereby a technician is paid a set percentage of the overall billing and revenue he or she produces.⁴ (Pls.' Response to SOF ¶¶ 11–12.) This process involves the technician completing a “tick sheet,” which is different from the technician's timesheet and lists the work performed by the technician at a subscriber's home. ( Id. ¶ 12.) Defendants' finance department assigns each task on the tick sheet a dollar amount, or piece-rate, that varies depending on the technician's skill level classification. ( Id.)

At the times relevant to this case, Defendants maintained a formal, written policy directing technicians to record both the time spent each day working and the production values generated that day. (Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 17, 19–21.) Defendants also maintained formal, written policies requiring the payment of all overtime worked, even if management did not approve the overtime work in advance. (Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 31–32.) Additionally, Defendants' project administrators engaged in weekly conference calls with Defendants' human resources department to address any issues with compliance and determine if additional training was needed. (Defs.' SOF ¶ 37; Pls.' Response to SOF ¶ 37.)

Plaintiffs contend that, in spite of these policies and procedures, Defendants undertook a series of measures to prevent technicians from recording all of the hours they worked each day. (Pls.' Response to SOF ¶¶ 17, 19–21.) First, Plaintiffs testified that Defendants, through managerial employees in their field offices, directed technicians to understate their hours by not recording time for work that was compensable and by telling employees to record certain start and stop times for their work days regardless of the actual times they began and completed work. ( Id. ¶ 17.) For example, according to Plaintiffs' evidence, a supervisor instructed one plaintiff to record 9:00 a.m. as his start time even though he began work two hours earlier, while another plaintiff began work at 6:50 a.m., but was instructed not to clock in until 8:00 a.m. ( Id. ¶ 19 (citing Barriero Dep. at 54 and C. Huggins Dep. at 60).) Also affecting Plaintiffs' hours was Defendants' policy of deducting for a lunch break each day irrespective of whether the technician actually took lunch—a practice the existence of which is confirmed by Defendants' managerial employees. ( Id. ¶ 19.)

Plaintiffs also offer evidence from several plaintiffs that managerial employees altered otherwise accurate timesheets from technicians to reduce or remove overtime hours. ( Id. ¶ 17.) Other plaintiffs testified that their timesheets now contain information in handwriting they do not recognize and, in some instances, the timesheets include apparent forgeries of the technician's signature. ( Id.) Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have implemented their piece-rate compensation system in such a way as to discourage technicians from properly recording the hours they work. ( Id.) Two plaintiffs testified that they knew if they accurately recorded the number of hours they worked and supervisors deemed those hours excessive, they would not be allowed to work the rest of the week. ( Id. (citing D. Dowdy Dep. at 17–18, 63 and M. Dyke Dep. at 22).) Plaintiffs contend as well that, although supervisors, project administrators, and Defendants' corporate payroll department were each charged with reconciling Plaintiffs' timesheets and tick sheets to ensure proper payment of wages, the responsible individuals and the payroll office routinely accepted timesheets that did not match information on the corresponding tick sheet. (Pls.' Response to SOF ¶ 25.)

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs either never complained of not receiving overtime pay or only complained to the supervisors in their field offices, but did not take their complaints to upper levels of management. (Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 41–46.) Plaintiffs, however, cite evidence from several Plaintiffs to the contrary. ( See, e.g., Pls.' Response to SOF ¶¶ 41–46.) For example, Plaintiff Timothy Williams testified that he asked both his project manager and his project administrator about not receiving proper overtime pay, but neither individual was receptive to his concerns. (Pls.' Response to SOF ¶ 41 (citing T. Williams Dep. at 19–20).) Plaintiff Matthew Queen complained to his supervisor and project manager before complaining to Defendants' corporate payroll department, but the payroll department told him to address his concerns to his project manager. ( Id. ¶ 42 (citing M. Queen Dep. at 43–44, 46–47).) Similarly, Plaintiffs Walter Huggins and Ben Kurk testified that they both contacted one of Defendants' corporate offices to inform it of their concerns, but neither ever received a return call. ( Id. ¶ 54 (citing W. Huggins Dep. at 18–19 and B. Kurk Dep. at 70–71).) Additionally, Plaintiffs aver in their interrogatories and depositions that they routinely complained to their managers about not being paid for all of the hours they worked. ( Id. ¶¶ 53–54.) However, when Plaintiffs brought their...