Warren v. Edgeco, Inc.

• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: KEVILLE
• Citation: 392 N.E.2d 857,8 Mass.App.Ct. 171
• Parties: , 24 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 400, 87 Lab.Cas. P 33,831 Robert WARREN v. EDGECO, INC.
• Decision Date: 27 July 1979

Page 857

392 N.E.2d 857 8 Mass.App.Ct. 171, 24 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 400,
87 Lab.Cas. P 33,831 Robert WARREN
v.
EDGECO, INC. Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Hampshire. Argued April 20, 1979.
Decided July 27, 1979.

Page 858

[8 Mass.App.Ct. 172] Alan R. Hoffman, Boston, for defendant.

S. Thomas Martinelli, Springfield, for plaintiff.

[8 Mass.App.Ct. 171] KEVILLE, GOODMAN and GREANEY, JJ.

[8 Mass.App.Ct. 172] KEVILLE, Justice.

This is an appeal by the defendant, Edgeco, Inc. (Edgeco), from judgments in favor of the plaintiff Warren after a jury trial in the Superior Court. The action was originally brought in the Superior Court and transferred to a District Court under G.L. c. 231, § 102C. After a trial, the District Court judge found that, on the first count of the complaint for unpaid overtime services as foreman of Edgeco's shop, Warren was entitled to $11,850 ¹ in compensation and liquidated damages, and attorney's fees of $2,000 under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), 216(b) (1976). On the second count the judge found for Warren in the amount of $12,000 for breach of

Page 859

an oral contract under which Warren engaged in trucking for Edgeco. ²

[8 Mass.App.Ct. 173] Edgeco failed to seek review in the Appellate Division but requested instead that the case be retransferred to the Superior Court for retrial under G.L. c. 231, § 102C. At this trial Warren introduced into evidence the District Court finding on the Fair Labor Standards Act count and the contract count. At the close of the evidence Edgeco moved for directed verdicts on both counts, alleging that Warren was estopped from making a claim for overtime because of his failure to report the overtime work on his weekly time cards, and that the trucking agreement was unenforceable, being against public policy, because Warren failed to comply with certain State and Federal requirements pertaining to motor carriers. The motion was denied. The jury returned verdicts for Warren on both counts, awarding damages of $3,750.70 on the claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act and $12,000 under the trucking agreement. The judge subsequently denied Edgeco's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which raised the same grounds as those presented in the motion for a directed verdict, but also asserted that damages under the trucking agreement were based upon an erroneous measure. He allowed Warren's motion for attorney's fees in the amount of $2,500.

There was evidence at retrial in the Superior Court that a representative of Edgeco approached Warren in 1971 concerning possible employment with the company. After several meetings with the company's president George MacElhiney, Warren agreed to become foreman of Edgeco's South Deerfield shop. According to Warren, MacElhiney agreed to pay him ten percent of the profits for running the shop. ³ He was expected to work whatever hours were necessary to run the shop but was not to include all of his overtime on his weekly time cards. ⁴ [8 Mass.App.Ct. 174] Instead, his ten percent share of the profits was to be considered compensation for unreported overtime. ⁵ Warren kept a personal record of his unreported overtime in a notebook which he did not show to MacElhiney.

Warren also asserted that he offered to undertake the job of trucking for Edgeco if he were assured of the position "for at least a year." Relying on MacElhiney's agreement to this condition, Warren purchased a tractor and trailers. Approximately two months later, he was fired as foreman of the shop; and a few days thereafter he was relieved of the trucking job as well. He thereafter sold the tractor and trailers at a loss. MacElhiney denied that Warren was told that he would be paid ten percent of the profits as compensation for unreported overtime. MacElhiney claimed that the trucking arrangement was on a job by job basis and that there was no one year guaranty.

1. Overtime Compensation.

Edgeco asserts that Warren's failure to report the alleged additional overtime on his weekly time cards estopped him from claiming compensation for such work under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for that reason that the judge erroneously denied its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. However, the Congressional policy underlying that act weighs heavily against a rule of estoppel of an employee in such a situation; and courts will not invoke such a

Page 860

rule if, as in this case, there is evidence upon which the jury could find that the employer was aware that the employee was working unreported overtime (see Handler v. Thrasher, 191 F.2d 120, 123 (10th Cir. 1951); Burry v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc., 338 F.2d 422, 426-427 (6th Cir. 1964)) or if the employer was not misled or deceived. Annot., 162 A .L.R. 305 [8 Mass.App.Ct. 175] (1946). See George Lawley & Son Corp. v. South, 140 F.2d 439, 443 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 322 U.S. 746, 64 S.Ct. 1156, 88 L.Ed. 1578 (1944). In cases cited by the defendant in which the employee was deemed to have been estopped, evidence was lacking that the employer was aware of the employee's extra...