Roeder et al v. DIRECTV, Inc et al
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order denying in its entirety 13 Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim and denying as moot 20 Motion for Time Within Which To Seek Leave To Amend Complaint Should The Court Grant Defendants Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (See Order Text). Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 9/22/2015. (des)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
JEFF ROEDER and CHRISTOPHER
GRILL,
No. C14-4091-MWB
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DIRECTV, INC. and DIRECTV, L.L.C.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS
___________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION........................................................................... 2
A.
Factual Background ............................................................... 2
B.
Procedural Background ........................................................... 4
II.
LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 5
A.
Standards For Motions To Dismiss.............................................. 5
B.
The FLSA Generally ............................................................... 7
C.
Joint Employment Under the FLSA ............................................. 7
D.
Review Of Factors ................................................................ 11
1.
The power to hire and fire .............................................. 11
2.
Supervision and control of work schedules and
conditions of employment ............................................... 11
3.
Determination of rate and method of payment ..................... 12
4.
Maintenance of employment records ................................. 13
5.
Totality of the circumstances ........................................... 15
E.
Minimum Wage and Overtime Claims ........................................ 15
III.
CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 17
Among the principal characters in Charles Dickens’s classic novel Bleak House is
Mr. Tulkinghorn, the solicitor to an aristocratic family, who manipulates the cast of
characters, as a puppetmaster, enabling him to direct the fates of others. In this lawsuit,
concerning purported violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FSLA”), 29 U.S.C.
§§ 2001-219, plaintiffs allege that, like Mr. Tulkinghorn, defendant DIRECTV acts as
the corporate puppetmaster of its business universe, pulling the strings of everyone in
that universe, including their employer, a company that was part of DIRECTV’s provider
network. DIRECTV has filed a Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 13), which requires me
to determine, inter alia, whether plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts establishing that
DIRECTV was also their employer under the FSLA.
I.
A.
INTRODUCTION
Factual Background
“When ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all
of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007)). Thus,
the factual background to the pending motion to dismiss must be drawn from the factual
allegations in plaintiffs Jeff Roeder and Christopher Grill’s Complaint, unless other
matters are also incorporated by reference, integral to their claims, subject to judicial
notice, matters of public record, orders, or in the record of the case. Miller v. Redwood
Toxicology Lab., Inc., 688 F.3d 928, 931 n.3 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing 5B CHARLES ALAN
WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1357 (3d ed.
2004)). In this case, Roeder and Grill did not attach any documents or exhibits to their
Complaint. Thus, the factual background presented, here, is based on Roeder and Grill’s
allegations in their Complaint.
2
Plaintiff Jeff Roeder is an individual residing in Arthur, Iowa.
Plaintiff
Christopher Grill is an individual residing in Parkersburg, Iowa. Defendant DIRECTV,
Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in El Segundo,
California. DIRECTV, Inc. does business as DIRECTV Home Services. In December
2011, DIRECTV merged with another DIRECTV entity, DIRECTV Operations, L.L.C.
The resulting entity is defendant DIRECTV, L.L.C., which is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in El Segundo, California.1
Roeder and Grill were technicians who installed and repaired DIRECTV satellite
television service for DIRECTV.
DIRECTV oversees and operates a “Provider
Network” comprised of intermediary entities known as “Home Service Providers”
(“HSPs”) and secondary intermediaries called “Secondary Providers.” Complaint at ¶
14. DIRECTV has merged with many of the HSPs, leaving three primary HSPs in
existence as independent entities still within the Provider Network; DirectSat, MasTec,
and Multiband. Complaint at ¶ 16. DIRECTV's relationship with the Provider Network
is controlled by a series of “Provider Agreements” that govern the framework for the
business relationship between DIRECTV and the customers of its Provider Network.
Complaint at ¶ 17. Included in the Provider Agreements are (1) required policies and
procedures with which hired technicians must comply; (2) uniform and identification
specifications, including requirements to show and wear DIRECTV insignia; and (3)
equipment installment specifications.
Complaint at ¶¶ 18–19.
While employed as
technicians, Roeder and Grill received daily schedules from a DIRECTV dispatching
1
DIRECTV states in its motion to dismiss that, as of January 1, 2012, DIRECTV,
Inc. merged into DIRECTV, L.L.C. and out of existence. This fact, however, has not
been established as a matter of law. Accordingly, I assume that both defendants
DIRECTV, Inc. and DIRECTV, L.L.C. continue to exist, but will refer to them
collectively as DIRECTV.
3
system. Roeder and Grill would complete jobs “assigned by Defendants in the prescribed
order on the daily work schedule.” Complaint at ¶ 21. Roeder and Grill were required
“to check-in by telephone with DIRECTV via its dispatching system.” Complaint at 21.
Once an assigned job was completed, they had to report it to DIRECTV, and coordinate
“directly with DIRECTV employees to activate the customer’s service. Complaint at ¶
21.
Payroll was administered by non-DIRECTV providers, and those providers also
directly paid Roeder and Grill. However, DIRECTV “determined whether Plaintiffs’
work merited compensation, including setting the rate of pay to the Providers for
Plaintiffs’ work.” Complaint at ¶ 34.
B.
Procedural Background
Roeder and Grill filed suit against DIRECTV under the FLSA, alleging that
DIRECTV was their employer and violated the FLSA by failing to pay them the statutory
minimum wage and required overtime compensation. DIRECTV has filed a motion to
dismiss in which it asserts that Roeder and Grill’s Complaint should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Specifically,
DIRECTV asserts that Roeder and Grill have failed to allege that DIRECTV was their
employer for purposes of the FLSA. DIRECTV also contends that Roeder and Grill’s
minimum wage claim must be dismissed because they have failed to plead sufficient facts
that would support their claim that they received wages below the minimum wage in any
workweek.
DIRECTV further asserts that Roeder and Grill’s overtime claim fails
because they have failed to identify any single workweek in which they worked over 40
hours and did not receive overtime.
Roeder and Grill filed a timely response to
DIRECTV’s motion in which they argue that their Complaint is sufficient to state a claim
4
for relief. In addition, Roeder and Grill filed a Conditional Motion For Time Within
Which To Seek Leave To Amend Should The Court Grant Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6)
Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 20) in which they request that I grant them time to seek
leave to file an amended complaint if I find their original Complaint fails to state a claim.
DIRECTV filed a timely reply brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss as well as a
response to Roeder and Grill’s Motion for Time to Seek Leave to Amend.
II.
A.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Standards For Motions To Dismiss
DIRECTV moves to dismiss Roeder and Grill’s Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a pre-answer motion to
dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained,
We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to
dismiss, accepting as true all factual allegations in the
complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of
the nonmoving party. See Palmer v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co.,
666 F.3d 1081, 1083 (8th Cir. 2012); see also FED. R. CIV.
P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d
868 (2009) (internal quotation omitted). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
Richter v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., 686 F.3d 847, 850 (8th Cir. 2012); accord Freitas
v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 703 F.3d 436, 438 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Richter,
686 F.3d at 850); Whitney v. Guys, Inc., 700 F.3d 1118, 1128 (8th Cir. 2012) (stating
the same standards).
5
Courts consider “plausibility” under this Twom-bal standard2 by “‘draw[ing] on
[their own] judicial experience and common sense.’” Whitney, 700 F.3d at 1128 (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). Also, courts must “‘review the plausibility of the plaintiff’s
claim as a whole, not the plausibility of each individual allegation.’” Id. (quoting Zoltek
Corp. v. Structural Polymer Grp., 592 F.3d 893, 896 n.4 (8th Cir. 2010)). The Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals has refused, at the pleading stage, “to incorporate some general
and formal level of evidentiary proof into the ‘plausibility’ requirement of Iqbal and
Twombly.” Id. Nevertheless, the question “is not whether [the pleader] might at some
later stage be able to prove [facts alleged]; the question is whether [it] has adequately
asserted facts (as contrasted with naked legal conclusions) to support [its] claims.” Id.
at 1129. Thus,
[w]hile this court must “accept as true all facts pleaded by the
non-moving party and grant all reasonable inferences from the
pleadings in favor of the non-moving party,” United States v.
Any & All Radio Station Transmission Equip., 207 F.3d 458,
462 (8th Cir. 2000), “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.
Ct. 1937 (quoting [Bell Atl. Corp. v.] Twombly, 550 U.S.
[544,] 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955 [(2007)]).
Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2012); Whitney, 700 F.3d
at 1128 (stating the same standards).
With the above standards in mind, I turn to consider DIRECTV’s Motion to
Dismiss.
2
The “Twom-bal” standard is my nickname for the “plausibility” pleading
standard established in the United States Supreme Court’s twin decisions on pleading
requirements, and standards for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for
claims in federal court. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 662.
6
B.
The FLSA Generally
The FLSA generally requires employers to pay covered employees engaged in
interstate commerce “one and one-half times” their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of forty hours per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207; see Jarrett v. ERC
Properties, Inc., 211 F.3d 1078, 1081 (8th Cir. 2000) (“The FLSA requires covered
employers to compensate non-exempt employees at overtime rates for time worked in
excess of statutorily-defined maximum hours.”). If an employer violates this provision,
the statute provides for the employee to recover, through a private cause of action, “in
the amount of [his] unpaid overtime compensation . . . and in an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages.”
29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
The FSLA’s “maximum hour”
requirement, however, does not protect all employees. Rather, the FSLA contains certain
exemptions that exclude various persons from coverage under Section 207. See id. at §
213. Where an exemption is alleged, the employer bears the burden of proving that
exemption, which is to be narrowly construed against the employer. See Graham v.
Town & Country Disposal of W. Mo., Inc., 865 F.Supp.2d 952, 956 (W.D. Mo. 2011).
C.
Joint Employment Under the FLSA
The FLSA defines “employer” as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the
interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d); see Orozco v.
Plackis, 757 F.3d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 2014); Manning v. Boston Med. Ctr. Corp., 725
F.3d 34, 47 (1st Cir. 2013); Moore v. Appliance Direct, Inc., 708 F.3d 1233, 1237 (11th
Cir. 2013); Ellington v. City of East Cleveland, 689 F.3d 549, 554 (6th Cir. 2012).3
“‘[T]he remedial purposes of the FLSA require the courts to define “employer” more
broadly than the term would be interpreted in traditional common law applications.’”
3
An “employee” is “any individual employed by an employer.” 29 U.S.C. §
203(e)(1). To “employ” means “to suffer or permit to work.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).
7
Orozco, 757 F.3d at 448 (quoting McLaughlin v. Seafood, Inc., 867 F.2d 875, 877 (5th
Cir. 1989) (per curiam)); see Ellington, 689 F.3d at 554-55 (same); Dole v. Elliott Travel
& Tours, Inc., 942 F.2d 962, 965 (6th Cir. 1991) (same); see also Nationwide Mut. Inc.
v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 326 (1992) (noting that the FLSA's definition “stretches the
meaning of ‘employee’ to cover some parties who might not qualify as such under a strict
application of traditional agency law principles”); Boucher v. Shaw, 572 F.3d 1087, 1090
(9th Cir. 2009) (“We have held that the definition of ‘employer’ under the FLSA is not
limited by the common law concept of ‘employer,’ but “‘“is to be given an expansive
interpretation in order to effectuate the FLSA's broad remedial purposes.”’”) (quoting
Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (quoting in turn
Bonnette v. California Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir. 1983)).
“In other words, the employment relationship determination ‘is not fixed by labels that
parties may attach to their relationship nor by common law categories nor by
classifications under other statutes.’” Ellington, 689 F.3d at 555 (quoting Powell v. U.S.
Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 528 (1950)); accord Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitorium and
Sch., Inc., 642 F.3d 518, 522 (6th Cir. 2011) (same)).
Federal regulations identify three situations in which a joint employment
relationship “generally will be considered to exist”:
(1) Where there is an arrangement between the employers to
share the employee's services, as, for example, to interchange
employees; or
(2) Where one employer is acting directly or indirectly in the
interest of the other employer (or employers) in relation to the
employee; or
(3) Where the employers are not completely disassociated
with respect to the employment of a particular employee and
may be deemed to share control of the employee, directly or
indirectly, by reason of the fact that one employer controls,
8
is controlled by, or is under common control with the other
employer.
29 C.F.R. § 791.2(b) (footnotes omitted).
As a result of expansive definitions of
employer and employee under the FSLA, federal courts rely on an economic reality test
in determining whether a party qualifies as an employer or employee under the FLSA.
See Ash v. Anderson Merchandisers, L.L.C., --- F.3d ---, 2015 WL 4978701, at *2 (8th
Cir. Aug. 21, 2015) (noting that “‘the test of employment under the FLSA is one of
‘economic reality.”’”) (quoting Tony and Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec'y of Labor, 471
U.S. 290, 301 (1985) (quoting in turn Goldberg v. Whitaker House Co-op., Inc., 366
U.S. 28, 33 (1961)); see also Keller v. Miri Microsystems L.L.C.,781 F.3d 799, 804 (6th
Cir. 2015); Orozco v. Plackis, 757 F.3d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 2014); Brown v. New York
Dept. of Educ., 755 F.3d 154, 167 (2d Cir. 2014); Barlow v. C.R. England, Inc., 703
F.3d 497, 506 (10th Cir. 2012); Gray v. Powers, 673 F.3d 352, 354 (5th Cir. 2012); In
re Enter. Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Emp’t Practices. 683 F.3d 462, 468 (3rd Cir. 2012);
Morrison v. International Programs Consortium, Inc., 253 F.3d 5, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2001);
Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997, 1001–02, 2012 (9th Cir. 1999); Bayside Alternative
Staffing, Inc. v. Herman, 163 F.3d 668, 675 (1st Cir. 1998); Villarreal v. Woodham,
113 F.3d 202, 205 (11th Cir. 1997).
In applying the economic reality test to determine whether an entity is an employer,
federal courts look to who has operating control over the employees, and consider
whether the alleged employer: (1) possessed the power to hire and fire employees; (2)
supervised or controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment; (3)
determined the rate or method of payment; and (4) maintained employee records.4 See
4
On the related question of whether an individual worker is an employee under the
FLSA, federal courts have instructed that the following six factors are to be considered:
9
Orozco, 757 F.3d at 448; Brown, 755 F.3d at 167; Barlow, 703 F.3d at 506; In re Enter.
Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Emp’t Practices. 683 F.3d at 468; Gray, 673 F.3d at 354–55;
Lamber, 180 F.3d at 1001–02, 2012; Herman, 163 F.3d at 675;Villarreal, 113 F.3d at
205; Henthorn v. Department of Navy, 29 F.3d 682, 684 (D.C. Cir. 1994); see also
Schubert v. Bethesda Health Grp., Inc., 319 F. Supp.2d 963, 971 (E.D. Mo. 2004)
(citing Baker v. Stone Cty., 41 F. Supp.2d 965, 980 (W.D. Mo. 1999)). None of these
factors alone is dispositive; instead, courts look to the totality-of-the-circumstances. See
Irizarry v. Catsimatidis, 722 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2013); Barlow, 703 F.3d at 506;
Ellington v. City of E. Cleveland, 689 F.3d 549, 555 (6th Cir. 2012); Herman v. RSR
Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 1999); Baker v. Flint Eng’g & Const. Co.,
137 F.3d 1436, 1440 (10th Cir. 1998); Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054,
1058–59 (2d Cir. 1988). I will consider each of these factors in turn, accepting all well
pleaded allegations in the Complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable factual inferences
(1) the nature and degree of the alleged employer's control as to the manner in which the
work is to be performed; (2) the alleged employee's opportunity for profit or loss
depending upon his or her managerial skill; (3) the alleged employee's investment in
equipment and materials required for his or her tasks, or his or her employment of
workers; (4) or that his or her service rendered requires a special service skill; (5) the
degree of permanency and duration of the working relationship; and (6) the extent to
which the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer's business. See
Scantland v. Jeffry Knight, Inc., 721 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2013); Barlow, 703
F.3d at 506; Hopkins v. Cornerstone Am., 545 F.3d 338, 343 (5th Cir. 2008); Schultz v.
Capitol Int'l Sec. Inc., 466 F.3d 298, 304–05 (4th Cir. 2006); Martin v. Selker Bros.,
949 F.2d 1286 (3d Cir. 1991); Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054, 1058–59
(2d Cir. 1988); Secretary of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529,
1535 (7th Cir. 1987); Donovan v. Sureway Cleaners, 656 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir.
1981); see also Franks v. Oklahoma State Indus., 7 F.3d 971, 972 (10th Cir. 1993)
(employing an almost identical five factor test). Here, because there is no dispute that
Roeder and Grill were employees under the FSLA, it is unnecessary for me to conduct
such an analysis.
10
from those facts in Roeder and Grill’s favor. See Smithrud v. City of St. Paul, 746 F.3d
391, 395 (8th Cir.2014); Freitas v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 703 F.3d 436, 438
(8th Cir. 2013); Richter v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., 686 F.3d 847, 850 (8th Cir.2012).
D.
1.
Review Of Factors
The power to hire and fire
I examine first whether DIRECTV had the right, directly or indirectly, to hire,
fire, or modify the employment conditions of Roeder and Grill. See Orozco, 757 F.3d
at 448; Brown, 755 F.3d at 167; Barlow, 703 F.3d at 506; In re Enter. Rent-A-Car Wage
& Hour Emp’t Practices. 683 F.3d at 468; Gray, 673 F.3d at 354–55; Lamber, 180 F.3d
at 1001–02, 2012; Herman, 163 F.3d at 675;Villarreal, 113 F.3d at 205; Henthorn, 29
F.3d at 684. Indirect control as well as direct control can demonstrate a joint employment
relationship. See Torres–Lopez v. May, 111 F.3d 633, 643 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing 29
C.F.R. § 500.20(h)(4)(ii)).
In their complaint, Roeder and Grill provide factual allegations regarding
DIRECTV's direct control over them and indirect control by way of agreements with,
and control over, the Provider Network. Complaint at ¶¶ 17–19. However, Roeder and
Grill acknowledge that hiring is done “at the Providers’ level.” Complaint at ¶ 32.
Roeder and Grill also describe the relationship between DIRECTV and the HSPs and the
provisions contained within the Provider Agreements that specifically allowed DIRECTV
to control all aspects of Roeder and Grill’s job activities. Complaint at ¶¶ 19–24. Thus,
I find that this factor supports Roeder and Grill’s assertion that DIRECTV was their
employer for purposes of the FLSA.
2.
Supervision and control of work schedules and conditions of
employment
I next consider whether DIRECTV had supervision and control over Roeder and
Grill’s work schedules and conditions of employment. See Orozco, 757 F.3d at 448;
11
Brown, 755 F.3d at 167; Barlow, 703 F.3d at 506; In re Enter. Rent-A-Car Wage &
Hour Emp’t Practices. 683 F.3d at 468; Gray, 673 F.3d at 354–55; Lamber, 180 F.3d
at 1001–02, 2012; Herman, 163 F.3d at 675;Villarreal, 113 F.3d at 205; Henthorn, 29
F.3d at 684.
Roeder and Grill extensively detail DIRECTV's control over their work schedules,
which are transmitted through DIRECTV's dispatching systems, and the order of
individual jobs they were required to complete. Complaint at ¶¶ 19–21. In addition,
Roeder and Grill allege that DIRECTV exerted direct control over other aspects of their
work. DIRECTV required Roeder and Grill to wear a uniform with DIRECTV’s insignia
on it and to purchase them from DIRECTV, provided them with equipment to use in the
field, and directed specific training they were required to have completed. Complaint at
¶¶ 19, 38-39. In addition, Roeder and Grill allege that they were required to report to
DIRECTV and coordinate with DIRECTV employees after each completed satellite
installation job. Complaint at ¶¶ 20-21. Thus, I find that this factor also supports Roeder
and Grill’s assertion that DIRECTV was their employer for purposes of the FLSA.
3.
Determination of rate and method of payment
I next consider whether DIRECTV determined the rate and method of payment to
Roeder and Grill. See Orozco, 757 F.3d at 448; Brown, 755 F.3d at 167; Barlow, 703
F.3d at 506; In re Enter. Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Emp’t Practices. 683 F.3d at 468;
Gray, 673 F.3d at 354–55; Lamber, 180 F.3d at 1001–02, 2012; Herman, 163 F.3d at
675;Villarreal, 113 F.3d at 205; Henthorn, 29 F.3d at 684.
Roeder and Grill allege DIRECTV “determined whether Plaintiffs’ work merited
compensation, including setting the rate of pay to the Providers for Plaintiffs’ work.”
Complaint at ¶ 34. Roeder and Grill further allege that they were paid pursuant to “a
piece-rate payment schedule” designated by DIRECTV.
12
Complaint at ¶ 45.
Accordingly, I find that this factor, too, supports Roeder and Grill’s assertion that
DIRECTV was their employer for purposes of the FLSA.
4.
Maintenance of employment records
I turn next to the fourth factor, maintenance of employment records.5 See Orozco,
757 F.3d at 448; Brown, 755 F.3d at 167; Barlow, 703 F.3d at 506; In re Enter. Rent5
The FLSA defines and prescribes the basic records that an employer must
maintain:
(1) Name in full, as used for Social Security recordkeeping
purposes, and on the same record, the employee's identifying
symbol or number if such is used in place of name on any
time, work, or payroll records,
(2) Home address, including zip code,
(3) Date of birth, if under 19,
(4) Sex and occupation in which employed . . . .
(5) Time of day and day of week on which the employee's
workweek begins (or for employees employed under section
7(k) of the Act, the starting time and length of each
employee's work period). If the employee is part of a
workforce or employed in or by an establishment all of whose
workers have a workweek beginning at the same time on the
same day, a single notation of the time of the day and
beginning day of the workweek for the whole workforce or
establishment will suffice,
(6)(i) Regular hourly rate of pay for any workweek in which
overtime compensation is due under section 7(a) of the Act,
(ii) explain basis of pay by indicating the monetary amount
paid on a per hour, per day, per week, per piece, commission
on sales, or other basis, and (iii) the amount and nature of
each payment which, pursuant to section 7(e) of the Act, is
13
A-Car Wage & Hour Emp’t Practices. 683 F.3d at 468; Gray, 673 F.3d at 354–55;
Lamber, 180 F.3d at 1001–02, 2012; Herman, 163 F.3d at 675; Villarreal, 113 F.3d at
205; Henthorn, 29 F.3d at 684.
The Complaint is entirely silent on the questions of what entity was responsible
for maintenance of Roeder and Grill’s employment records and where those records were
kept. Thus, I find that this factor neither supports nor weighs against Roeder and Grill’s
assertion that DIRECTV was their employer for purposes of the FLSA.
excluded from the “regular rate” (these records may be in the
form of vouchers or other payment data),
(7) Hours worked each workday and total hours worked each
workweek (for purposes of this section, a “workday” is any
fixed period of 24 consecutive hours and a “workweek” is
any fixed and regularly recurring period of 7 consecutive
workdays),
(8) Total daily or weekly straight-time earnings or wages due
for hours worked during the workday or workweek, exclusive
of premium overtime compensation,
(9) Total premium pay for overtime hours. This amount
excludes the straight-time earnings for overtime hours
recorded under paragraph (a)(8) of this section,
(10) Total additions to or deductions from wages paid each
pay period including employee purchase orders or wage
assignments. Also, in individual employee records, the dates,
amounts, and nature of the items which make up the total
additions and deductions,
(11) Total wages paid each pay period,
(12) Date of payment and the pay period covered by payment.
29 C.F.R. § 516.2.
14
5.
Totality of the circumstances
After reviewing the Complaint, accepting all well-pleaded allegations as true, and
drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in Roeder and Grill’s favor, I
conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, Roeder and Grill have alleged
sufficient facts to show that DIRECTV was their employer for purposes of the FLSA.
Accordingly, this portion of DIRECTV’S motion to dismiss is denied.
E.
Minimum Wage and Overtime Claims
DIRECTV challenges the sufficiency of Roeder and Grill’s claims alleging failure
to pay overtime and minimum wages, which are based, in part, on allegations that Roeder
and Grill were (1) routinely subjected to a wage rate that was less than the applicable
minimum wage because they were not compensated for all hours worked; (2) unlawfully
deprived of overtime compensation; (3) not reimbursed by DIRECTV for necessary
business expenses; and (4) subject to “charge backs” from their pay. Complaint at ¶ 4455.
DIRECTV argues that Roeder and Grill have failed to plead a plausible claim
because they have not alleged: (1) the number of hours worked for which they did not
receive compensation; (2) the specific weeks during which those hours were worked; (3)
their rate of pay; (4) the business expenses for which they did not receive reimbursement;
and (5) the amount of “charge backs” deducted from their pay. DIRECTV relies on the
standards for pleading overtime and wage claims under the FLSA set forth by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (9th
Cir. 2014). The Landers decision, however, does not require a detailed account of
overtime hours worked or weeks during which overtime was not paid. Instead, the court
held that a plaintiff “may establish a plausible claim by estimating the length of her
average workweek during the applicable period and the average rate at which she was
15
paid, the amount of overtime wages she believes she is owed, or any other facts that will
permit the court to find plausibility.” Landers, 771 F.3d at 645. The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals did require that a plaintiff must recite more than conclusory allegations
that follow the statutory language in order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Id. at 644.
DIRECTV specifically points to language in Landers that, “at a minimum, a
plaintiff asserting a violation of the FLSA overtime provisions must allege that she
worked more than forty hours in a given workweek without being compensated for the
hours worked in excess of forty during that week.” Id. at 645. While the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals did not require plaintiffs to plead the overtime compensation allegedly
owed to them “with mathematical precision,” it instructed that “they should be able to
specify at least one workweek in which they worked in excess of forty hours and were
not paid overtime wages.” Id. at 646. DIRECTV argues that Roeder and Grill’s failure
to pinpoint a specific workweek in their factual allegations supporting the FLSA minimum
wage and overtime claims cause those claims to fail to meet Landers’s pleading
requirements.
Roeder and Grill allege that they “routinely worked more than 40 hours per week,”
and that DIRECTV's policies and practices “resulted in [Plaintiffs] being routinely
subjected to working at an effective wage rate of less than the applicable minimum wage.”
Complaint at ¶¶ 60, 62, 64, 66. The Landers decision clearly holds that a plaintiff fails
to state a claim under the FLSA by alleging only that he or she worked “more than 40
hours per week.” Landers, 771 F.3d at 645. Roeder and Grill do not identify a datespecific workweek during which they worked in excess of 40 hours, and DIRECTV
argues that, as a result, Roeder and Grill’s pleadings falls short of the standard articulated
in Landers.
Landers does not govern in this case, because it is not controlling precedent within
the Eighth Circuit. See Rural Water Sys. No. 1 v. City of Sioux City, 967 F. Supp. 1483,
16
1498 n.2 (N.D. Iowa 1997).
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals's reasoning is
persuasive, but not controlling in the Eighth Circuit. See Id. Moreover, even if the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals were to adopt Landers’s pleading requirements, it would
not impact this case. In Landers, plaintiff only made a general allegation that he was
subjected to a piecework wage system in which he worked more than forty hours per
week without being paid for overtime and that if he was paid some overtime, it was less
than the law required. See Landers, 771 F.3d at 640. There was no allegation identifying
any particular week when the plaintiff had worked more than forty hours. Thus, the
defendant was left to guess at what time periods were covered by the plaintiff's
allegations. Roeder and Grill do not assert the same or a similar type of unpaid-overtime
case as the plaintiff in Landers. Roeder and Grill allege that they were misclassified as
exempt from the requirement to pay time-and-one-half for overtime. Roeder and Grill
allege that they always worked more than forty hours per week. Thus, unlike the
defendant in Landers, DIRECTV is not left to guess when Roeder and Grill contend they
was underpaid: they allege that they were underpaid for every week they worked for
DIRECTV.
Considering the facts in the light most favorable to Roeder and Grill, I find that
the Landers standard is satisfied by Roeder and Grill’s allegations concerning their
overtime and minimum wage claims brought under the FLSA. Thus, DIRECTV's
Motion to Dismiss Roeder and Grill’s overtime and minimum wage claims for failure to
allege sufficient facts are denied.
III.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, Roeder and Grill may have to provide more information regarding the
secondary provider which employed them, and prove that they were not paid for overtime
and were subject to a rate below minimum wage but, at this motion to dismiss stage, in
17
which I must accept all well pleaded allegations in the Complaint as true and draw all
reasonable factual inferences from those facts in Roeder and Grill’s favor, they have
pleaded sufficient facts to show that DIRECTV was their employer for purposes of the
FLSA.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, defendant DIRECTV’s Motion to
Dismiss is denied in its entirety. Plaintiff Roeder and Grill’s Conditional Motion For
Time Within Which To Seek Leave To Amend Should The Court Grant Defendants’ Rule
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss is accordingly denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 22nd day of September, 2015.
______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
18
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?