Perez v. Bland Farms Production & Packing, LLC et al

Filing 154

ORDER directing the Clerk to enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Bland Farms in the amount of $1,480,268.55, which represents the back wages and liquidated damages owed for the 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 Vidalia onion seasons. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 11/21/2019. (maa)

if- I / f Q

U.S. DISTRICT CGUr<r
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE AUCI.'-i/SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

20i9HOy2l ?n2'k^

STATESBORO DIVISION

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA,
Secretary of Labor, United

*
*

CLERK
SO. UiSi. L',- GA.

States Department of Labor,
Plaintiff,

*
"k

V.

*

CV 614-053

5

BLAND FARMS PRODUCTION &

*

PACKAGING, LLC,

*
k

Defendant.

ORDER

In this case. Plaintiff, the United States Department of Labor

("DOL"}/ sued Bland Farms, alleging that Bland Farms was not paying

its packing-shed workers overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act {"FLSA").

February

of

2017,

finding

This Court conducted a bench trial in

that

the

packing-shed

workers

did

not

qualify as exempt employees and were therefore owed overtime wages
for

the

2012

although Bland
regarding

through

2017

seasons.

This

Farms reasonably relied

overtime

payments,

once

the

Court

on the
DOL

found

that

DOL's 1985 guidance

filed

could no longer rely on the DOL's prior advice.

also

suit Bland

Farms

This Court therefore

awarded liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) in an amount

representing the time after the DOL sued during which the workers
were not paid overtime.
Court

of

Appeals

for

Bland Farms appealed and the United States

the

Eleventh

Circuit

affirmed

this

Court's

finding that Bland Farms' employees were not exempt from the FLSA's
overtime

rules

but

vacated

and

remanded

this

Court's

award

of

liquidated damages. The Court of Appeals ruled that this Court should
have considered both Bland Farms' belief that it was in compliance

with the FLSA based on the DOL's initial guidance and Bland Farms'

separate belief that it was in compliance with FLSA because of its
control over the farmers who grew the onions handled in the packing
shed.

Upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the mandate of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is made the
judgment of this Court.
VACATES the

portions

In accordance therewith, the Court hereby

of its

awarding liquidated damages.

prior

Orders

(docs.

109,

119,

120)

The Court's analysis of Bland Farms'

two good faith belief arguments is set forth below.

29 U.S.C. § 216(b) requires courts to award liquidated damages
against employers who violate 29 U.S.C. § 207, as Bland Farms did
here.

See Dybach

v.

Fla. Pep't of Corr., 942 F.2d 1562, 1566-67

(11th Cir. 1991) (citing EEOC v. First Citizens Bank, 758 F.2d 397,
403 (9th Cir. 1985)).

However, if the employer shows that it acted

in good faith and had reasonable grounds for believing it was not
violating the FLSA, the court has discretion to reduce the amount of
liquidated damages or award none at all.

29 U.S.C. § 260.

employer bears the burden of proof on this issue."

652 F. App'x 792, 794 (11th Cir. 2016).

''The

Quarles v. Hamler,

The issue of good faith and reasonable belief contains two
distinct parts: a subjective and an objective component.

Dybach^ 942

F.2d at 1566. The subjective component asks whether the employer

honestly tried to ascertain what the FLSA requires and to act in
compliance

with the requirements.

The

objective

component asks

whether the employer reasonably believed it complied with the FLSA.
The

employer

defense.

must establish

both

to

succeed

with

a

Section

260

See Miller v. Garibaldi^s Inc., No. CV 414-007, 2018 WL

1567856, at *5 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2018) {citing Davila v. Menendez,
717 F.Sd 1179, 1186 (11th Cir. 2013); Dybach, 942 F.2d at 1566).

Bland Farms asserts two grounds in support of its good faith and
reasonable belief argument.
DOL's letter.

First, it argues that it relied on the

Second, it argues that it reasonably believed it

complied with the FLSA because of the control it exercised over the
contract

farmers

who

grew

the

onions

the

packing-shed

employees

handled.

As to the first argument, this Court earlier found that Bland
Farms acted in good faith and with reasonable belief that it complied

with the FLSA when it relied on the guidance letter from the DOL, at
least until the DOL filed the instant suit.

(Doc. 109, at 19-21.)

At that point. Bland Farms' reliance on the letter for assurance that

it was in compliance with the FLSA was no longer reasonable.
at 20.)

(Id.

This Court noted that Bland Farms continued to believe that

it complied with the

FLSA throughout the litigation.

While this

belief might satisfy the subjective component, it could not satisfy
the objective component.

Bland Farms should have known that the DOL

no longer agreed with the guidance in its 1985 letter, and continued
reliance thereon would not be objectively reasonable.

This Court

awarded liquidated damages in an amount representing the period that
Bland Farms did not pay overtime after the suit was filed because
that was the time that Bland Farms could no longer satisfy both the

objective and subjective components as required by 29 U.S.C. § 260
and Dybach.

The Court finds that the above rationale applies consonantly to

Bland Farms' second argument.

Even assuming that Bland Farms acted

with subjective good faith and reasonable belief that it was in
compliance with the FLSA because it thought it was the farmer of the
onions, it could not satisfy the objective component without further
inquiry into the issue once the DOL instituted this action.
^'Objective good faith means the employer had reasonable grounds
for believing its conduct comported with the FLSA."

Friedman v. S.

Fla. Psychiatric Assocs., Inc., 139 F. App'x 183, 186 (11th Cir.
2005).

Again, once the DOL filed suit alleging that Bland Farms was

not properly paying overtime to its packing-shed workers. Bland Farms

could no longer reasonably believe that it was acting in compliance
with the FLSA without any renewed investigation into the matter.
court has so found.

In Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 604

One
F.

Supp. 2d 903, 926 (E.D. La. 2009), the court found that the defendant

had not demonstrated its good faith in classifying the plaintiff as
an exempt employee.
district

against

The court found that a lawsuit filed in another
the

defendant

put

it

^'on

notice"

classification of its employees may be incorrect.

Id.

that

its

The Johnson

defendant's failure to investigate the accuracy of its classification
once on notice convinced the court that exempting the defendant from
liquidated damages was inappropriate.

Id.; Cf. Meeks v. Pasco Cty.

Sheriff, 688 F. App'x 714, 718 (11th Cir. 2017) (no good faith when
"[defendant] (1) was aware that the [DOL] was investigating [the]

compensation practice and (2) was familiar with a decision from [the
Eleventh

Circuit] that called

into

question

the

legality of the

practice.").
Applying the same reasoning to this case. Bland Farms was on
notice that its policy regarding its packing shed employees could be
incorrect and it should have at least reexamined the policy once the

DOL filed suit.
did so.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that it

Accordingly, the Court cannot find that Bland Farms acted

in good faith for the period following the initiation of the suit.
As to the period before suit was filed, the Court has already found
that Bland Farms acted with subjective and objective good faith and
reasonable belief in its reliance on the 1985 letter, therefore the

Court need not consider these components with respect to Bland Farms'

independent belief that it complied with the FLSA.

In review, the Court reiterates its findings and conclusions

with respect to Bland Farms' argument that it acted in good faith and
with reasonable belief in its reliance of the DOL's 1985 letter.

As

to Bland Farms' argument that it had a separate basis for believing
it complied with FLSA, the Court finds that regardless of what that
basis was, without reexamination thereof Bland Farms could not have

reasonably relied in objective good faith on that basis once the DOL
filed the instant suit alleging that the packing-shed employees should

be paid overtime.

Because Bland Farms did satisfy the objective and

subjective components leading up to the start of this lawsuit, the
Court exercises its discretion and awards no liquidated damages for

the period before the suit.

Given the nature of the claims in the

suit, once it was filed. Bland Farms was aware that its overtime

policies could be incorrect.

At that point. Bland Farms could no

longer justify its non-payment of overtime, be it in reliance on the
1985 letter or some other interpretation of the FLSA it had formed
prior to the notice.

Finally, even if Bland Farms had demonstrated its good faith
under Section 260, it would be within the Court's discretion to award

liquidated damages.

See Quarles, 652 F. App'x

at 795

(''Even if

[defendant] had proved he acted in good faith, the court still would
have

been

within

its

discretion

to

award

liquidated

damages.").

Therefore, the Court awards liquidated damages in the amounts listed

below, representing the period in which Bland Farms did not satisfy

the objective component of 29 U.S.C. § 260 following the institution
of this suit.

In light of the above findings and conclusions/ the amount of
liquidated damages awarded to Plaintiff should not change. Therefore,
the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Clerk is instructed to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff

and

against

Defendant

Bland

Farms

in

the

amount

of

$1/480,268.55, which represents the back wages and liquidated
damages owed for the 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017
Vidalia onion seasons.^
2. This case shall remain closed.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this ^\/

day of November,

2019.

J. RAWBSITHALL,^ CHIEF JUDGE
UNITEDyBTATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

^ This figure consists of: (i) back wages totaling $552,070.86 for
the 2012, 2013, and 2014 seasons; (ii) liquidated damages totaling
$94,888.69 for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 seasons; (iii) back wages
totaling $148,438.86 for the 2015 season; (iv) liquidated damages
totaling $148,438.86 for the 2015 season; (v) back wages totaling
$167,771.47 for the 2016 season; (vi) liquidated damages totaling
$167,771.47 for the 2016 season; (vii) back wages totaling
$100,444.17 for the 2017 season; and (viii) liquidated damages
totaling $100,444.17 for the 2017 season.