Pineda v. Skinner Servs., Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 16-12217-FDS |
| Parties | JOSE PINEDA, JOSE MONTENEGRO, MARCO LOPEZ, and JOSE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SKINNER SERVICES, INC., d/b/a SKINNER DEMOLITION, THOMAS SKINNER, DAVID SKINNER, ELBER DINIZ, and SANDRO SANTOS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL AND RELATED MOTIONS TO STRIKE
This case concerns claims by manual laborers against their employer, Skinner Services, Inc., d/b/a Skinner Demolition ("Skinner"), and supervisors Thomas Skinner, David Skinner, Elber Diniz, and Sandro Santos, for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and Massachusetts wage laws.
On September 13, 2019, defendants filed a motion seeking summary judgment and dismissal as to Counts 1 and 3, which are the FLSA claims of the named plaintiffs Jose Pineda, Jose Montenegro, Marco Lopez, and Jose Hernandez, due to their alleged failure to "commence" the FLSA collective action by filing consents to sue within the applicable statute of limitations period, as mandated by 29 U.S.C. § 256. Defendants also filed a second motion for summary judgment, contingent on the first, seeking dismissal of the entire complaint on the ground that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the FLSA action was never properly commenced, or in the alternative because the plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of proving damages. Defendants filed a third motion for summary judgment as to the claims against individual defendants David Skinner, Sandro Santos, and Elber Diniz on the basis that those persons are not individually liable for the actions of the company.
Plaintiffs oppose summary judgment and dismissal, and have also moved to strike certain paragraphs in defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("Def. SMF"). Defendants have moved to strike certain paragraphs in plaintiffs' Counter-Statement of Material Facts ("Pl. SMF"). Defendants have also moved to strike plaintiffs' September 19, 2019 letter and the signed consents to sue that are attached to it.
For the following reasons, defendants' first motion for summary judgment and dismissal of Counts 1 and 3 will be denied; defendants' second motion for summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint will be denied; and defendants' third motion for summary judgment and dismissal of claims against the individual defendants will be denied as to David Skinner and Sandro Santos and granted as to Counts 1, 3, and 5 asserted against Elber Diniz. Plaintiffs' motion to strike and defendants' two motions to strike will be denied.
The following facts are as set forth in the record and are undisputed except as noted.
Skinner Services, Inc., doing business as Skinner Demolition, is a construction company based in Avon, Massachusetts. (Am. Comp. ¶ 15). It performs work at construction sites in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. (Id. ¶ 16).
Jose Pineda, Jose Montenegro, Marco Lopez, and Jose Hernandez are manual laborers who have worked for Skinner. (Id. ¶¶ 48-177).
The named and opt-in plaintiffs allege that, until February 2016, Skinner had a policy (the "Reporting Policy") requiring its laborers to report at approximately 5:45 a.m. to the yard at the company's Avon headquarters, where they would receive jobsite assignments, and to return to the yard after leaving their jobsites. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 48-211). According the plaintiffs, they were not compensated for the time spent reporting to the yard, waiting for job assignments, loading tools and equipment onto vehicles, traveling to jobsites, traveling back to the yard after leaving the jobsites, and unloading tools and equipment in the yard. (Id.). Plaintiffs allege that personnel who drove crew to jobsites would be compensated for up to one hour's driving time, regardless of the amount of time actually spent driving. (Id.). They allege that as a result, they were not paid wages to which they were entitled, whether as overtime or otherwise.
Defendants deny that such a mandatory reporting policy existed and contend that laborers were free to make their own travel arrangements and were properly compensated for their travel time. It is undisputed that the policy, if it existed, ended in February 2016. (Pl. SMF ¶¶ 136-37).
Plaintiffs also allege that starting on August 2, 2013, Skinner improperly deducted money from employees' weekly paychecks for a uniform laundering and repair service (the "Uniform Policy") through an outside vendor, Cintas Corporation. (Def. SMF ¶¶ 71-82; Pl. SMF ¶¶ 71-82). Plaintiffs allege that Skinner coerced employees into participating in the program, deducted varying amounts of money from the paychecks of even those employees who expressly refused to participate, and did not consistently provide the promised laundry and repair services. (Pl.
Defendants allege that participation in the program was voluntary, subject to a signed agreement form, and that the program provided measurable benefits, including free clothing, laundry, and repair services. (Def. SMF ¶¶ 71-82). It is undisputed that the weekly payroll deduction was approximately one hour's pay and varied among employees depending on their hourly wage. (Def. SMF ¶ 76; Pl. SMF ¶ 76). It is also undisputed that the last uniform deductions taken from the paychecks of named plaintiffs Jose Pineda, Marco Lopez, Jose Montenegro, and Jose Hernandez occurred on, respectively, January 30, 2015; March 30, 2015; August 5, 2016; and August 5, 2016. (Def. SMF ¶¶ 80-82; Pl. SMF ¶¶ 80-82).
Plaintiffs further allege that the FLSA violations were willful—that is, that Skinner's principals either knew their policies violated FLSA or showed reckless disregard as to that possibility. . In support of that position, plaintiffs allege that defendants knew they were required to pay overtime under FLSA, as evidenced by the fact that they paid overtime for at least some of the work performed by employees on jobsites that exceeded 40 hours in a week and for some of employees' driving time, and had a federal poster regarding FLSA requirements posted in the yard. They also allege that three Skinner managers admitted that they knew work in the yard and travel time should be compensated. (Pl. SMF ¶ 117).1
Plaintiffs further allege that defendants deliberately failed to keep records of the time employees spent working at the yard and traveling to jobsites to avoid having to compensateemployees for that time. (Pl. SMF ¶¶ 118-19). Allegedly, defendants instructed employees to "punch in" only upon arriving at jobsites rather than upon arriving at the yard, unless they were driving Skinner company vehicles or a dump truck. (Id.). They also allege that defendants manipulated employees' time records in the TimeStation tracking system; according to plaintiffs, defendants altered the recorded time spent driving 1,499 times—1,060 of which resulted in the driving times being manually re-set to 59 minutes, 1 hour, or 1 hour and 1 minute—and eliminated records of punch-ins and punch-outs at the yard at least 12 times. (Pl. SMF ¶¶ 120-21).
Finally, plaintiffs allege that defendants paid employees in cash to prevent the payments from appearing on official records; ignored repeated complaints from employees requesting to be paid for their reporting and travel time; never consulted an attorney about paying for reporting and travel time; and generated a memorandum on February 26, 2016, after becoming subject to a Department of Labor investigation about inaccurate time reporting in violation of the FLSA, claiming that they had never required employees to report to the yard. (Pl. SMF ¶¶ 122-25).
Plaintiffs further allege unlawful retaliation against Jose Pineda, Marco Lopez, and Jose Hernandez in violation of FLSA and Massachusetts wage laws. Specifically, plaintiffs Pineda, Lopez, and Hernandez allege that after filing their original complaint in this case in November 2016, Skinner subjected them to adverse employment actions, including reduction of hours, assignment of less desirable jobs that were further away from home, and denial of previously available transportation to jobsites. (Pl. SMF ¶¶ 66-70; Def. SMF ¶¶ 66-70).
The complaint names four individuals as defendants in addition to Skinner Services, Inc.,d/b/a Skinner Demolition: Thomas Skinner, David Skinner, Elber Diniz, and Sandro Santos. The evidence concerning their roles in the company is set forth later in this memorandum.
Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action on November 2, 2016. They filed an amended complaint on December 9, 2016.
The amended complaint asserts eight claims. Counts One and Two, respectively, assert claims that defendants failed to pay plaintiffs wages at one-and-a-half-times their hourly rates for overtime, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207 and the Massachusetts Fair Wage Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, §§ 1A, 1B. Counts Three and Four, respectively, assert claims that defendants failed to pay plaintiffs minimum wage for a significant number of hours worked, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206 and the Massachusetts Fair Wage Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, §§ 1, 20. Count Five asserts a claim that defendants failed to pay plaintiffs wages owed, in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148. Counts Six, Seven, and Eight, respectively, assert claims that defendants took adverse employment actions against certain plaintiffs for taking part in this action, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148A, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial