Riddle v. Tex-fin Inc
| Decision Date | 22 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. H-08-3121 |
| Parties | JAMES W. RIDDLE, Plaintiff, v. TEX-FIN, INC. and T.A. HALL, JR., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
James W. Riddle was a maintenance worker at Tex-Fin, Inc. from October 2005 to September 2008. Riddle sued the company for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (Docket Entry No.1）)1 The second trial resulted in a jury determination that Riddle had worked a total of 79 hours of unpaid overtime, far less than the approximately 1,512 hours Riddle alleged. (Docket Entry No. 66). Riddle has moved for entry of judgment. (Docket Entry No. 67). In addition to actual damages of $3,323.61 for the unpaid overtime hours proven at trial, he also seeks liquidated damages in the same amount, attorney's fees in the amount of $69,712.50, and costs of court. Riddle moved for costs in the amount of $4,502.51, then reduced the amount sought to $1,782.34. Tex-Fin responded that liquidated damages and attorney's fees are inappropriate in this case, and that the amount of costs was excessive. (Docket Entry No. 68). Riddle replied. (Docket Entry No. 70).
Based on the record; the motion, response, and reply; and the relevant case law, this court grants the motion for entry of judgment. Tex-Fin must pay Riddle $3,323.61 in actual damages, $3,323.61 in liquidated damages, $32,175 in attorney's fees, and $791.54 in costs. Final judgment is entered by separate order.
The reasons for these rulings are explained below.
Riddle worked as a maintenance worker at Tex-Fin's pipe fabrication and manufacturing plant near Houston, Texas from October 2005 until September 2008. He was paid a set amount based on an hourly wage for a 40-hour week. Riddle sued on October 21, 2008, alleging that Tex-Fin had failed to pay him for hours he worked above the 40 hours scheduled each workweek during his employment. Riddle alleged willful FLSA violations and sought actual and liquidated damages for unpaid overtime, attorney's fees, costs, and interest. Riddle claimed that he worked approximately eight hours of overtime each week he worked for Tex-Fin and also worked one Saturday and two Sundays each month, for a total of about 1,512 hours of unpaid overtime. Tex-Fin counterclaimed for fraud and conversion, alleging that Riddle had taken work tools when he quit his job. (Docket Entry No. 7).
Before trial, the parties attempted mediation. Riddle's attorney asserts that he offered to settle the case for $85,000. Tex-Fin countered with zero. Riddle lowered his request to $75,000, and Tex-Fin again countered with zero. The mediator dissolved the mediation.
Two trials were required. The first took place in January 2010. The jury rejected Tex-Fin's fraud and conversion claims. The jury was asked four questions relevant to Riddle's hours:
Do you find that Mr. Riddle worked overtime hours while employed at Tex-Fin?
Answer "yes" or "no."_
If you have answered this question "yes, " proceed to the next question. If you have answered "no, " proceed to answer jury questions number 5 and 6.
Do you find that Tex-Fin had actual or constructive knowledge of Mr. Riddle working overtime hours while employed at Tex-Fin?
Answer "yes" or "no."_
If you have answered this question "yes, " proceed to the next question. If you have answered "no, " proceed to answer jury questions number 5 and 6.
How many overtime hours, if any, do you find that James Riddle is entitled to compensation for working? Answer "yes" or "no" to each of the following categories:
8 hours of overtime every week? Yes_No_
1 Saturday every month? Yes_No_
2 Sundays every year? Yes_No_
If you have answered "yes" to jury questions numbers 1 and 2, then answer the following question. Otherwise proceed to answer jury questions number 5 and 6.
Do you find that the violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, if any, was willful, that is, that Tex-Fin knew the compensation paid to James Riddle violated the Fair Labor Standards Act or showed reckless disregard for whether the compensation complied with the Act?
Answer "yes" or "no."_
(Docket Entry No. 32). No party objected to these questions.
The jury answered "yes" to questions one, two, and four. To each subpart of Question 3, the jury answered "no." The foreperson wrote next to the subparts, respectively, "$47,000, " "$11,500, " and "$2,000." Below the answer to question three, the foreperson wrote, (Id.). The answers were inconsistent and did not correspond to the questions asked. This court set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial. (Docket Entry No. 39).
After the first trial, Riddle's attorney offered to settle the case for $25,000, including fees. Tex-Fin refused.
A second two-day trial took place on July 19 and 20, 2010. The jury was first asked the following question:
Do you find that James Riddle has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he worked more than 40 hours without receiving overtime compensation in one or more workweeks during the three years of his employment at Tex-Fin? In answering the jury questions, use the definition of "hours worked" provided in these instructions.
Answer "yes" or "no."_
If you have answered this question "yes, " proceed to the next question. If you have answered "no, " do not answer any more questions.
(Docket Entry No. 66). The jury answered "yes." Question 2 asked the jury to decide the number of overtime hours Riddle worked in each of 79 workweeks. The jury answered 1 hour for each week, totaling 79 hours. The jury was also asked to determine the total number of overtime hoursRiddle worked on Saturdays from October 21, 2005 to October 21, 2006, and from October 22, 2006 to September 19, 2008. The jury filled in "4" for the first period and "8" for the second. The jury was also asked the number of hours Riddle worked on Sundays for each period. The jury answered "0" to both.
The jury was also asked whether any FLSA violation was willful. Question 3 asked:
Do you find that the violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, if any, was willful, that is, that Tex-Fin knew the compensation paid to James Riddle violated the Fair Labor Standards Act or showed reckless disregard for whether the compensation complied with the Act?
Answer "yes" or "no."_
(Id.). The jury answered "no."
Riddle moved for entry of judgment. (Docket Entry No. 76). He seeks $3,323.61 each in actual and liquidated damages; $69,712.50 in attorney's fees; and $1,782.342 in costs. Tex-Fin responded. (Docket Entry No. 68). Tex-Fin did not contest the amount of actual damages but contended that liquidated damages were inappropriate because it reasonably acted in good faith to comply with the FLSA. Tex-Fin also urged the court to award no attorney's fees. Alternatively, Tex-Fin argued for a reduction in the fee amount in light of the disparity between the recovery sought and obtained. Tex-Fin also argued that some of the billings were unreasonable and inadequately supported. Finally, Tex-Fin argued that Riddle is entitled to only $791.54 in costs. Riddle replied. (Docket Entry No. 69).
Each argument is addressed below.
Under the FLSA,
Any employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or section 207 of this title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of... their unpaid overtime compensation... and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.... The court in such action shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.
29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Although the parties agree on the amount of actual damages, they dispute the liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
The FLSA mandates that a covered employee be paid one-and-a-half times his ordinary wage for every hour worked beyond forty hours each week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1); Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron, 334 U.S. 446, 476 (1948); Houston Police Officers' Union v. City of Houston, 330 F.3d 298, 300 (5th Cir. 2003); Garza v. Smith Int'l, Inc., Civ. A. No. C-10-100, 2011 WL 338819, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2011); Halford v. No Hope Logging, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 2d 523, 527 n.3 (S.D. Miss. 2010). The jury concluded that Riddle worked 79 hours in unpaid overtime. Ten of the hours were between October 21, 2006 and January 19, 20007. At that time, Riddle's hourly wage was $27.50 per hour, yielding an overtime wage of $41.25. Riddle's overtime pay for the period is $412.50. The jury found that Riddle worked 69 overtime hours between January 20, 2008 and September 21, 2008. Riddle's wage during that period was $28.13 per hour, yielding an overtime rate of $42.19. Riddle's overtime wages for that period are $2,911.11. The parties agree with these calculations. Riddle is entitled to a total of $3,323.61 in actual damages.
Section 216(b) provides for "an additional equal amount in liquidated damages." 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The purpose of liquidated damages is to "compensate an employee for delay in payment." Reich v. Helicopter Servs., Inc., 8 F.3d 1018, 1031 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 715-16 (1945)). A court must generally must award the full amount of liquidated damages as liquidated damages. Singer v. City of Waco, Tex., 324 F.3d 813, 822-23 (5th Cir. 2003). If the court concludes that the employer acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds for believing that the conduct did not violate the FLSA, the court may "award no liquidated damages or any amount" up to actual damages. 29 U.S.C. § 260; 29 C.F.R. § 790.22(b); Singer, 324 F.3d at 822-23.
It is the employer's burden...
To continue reading
Request your trial