Allen et al v. Entergy Louisiana, LLC

Filing 226

ORDER AND REASONS denying 210 Motion for Reconsideration of the Bonus Offset Issue. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo. (ecm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
STEPHEN ALLEN ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 11-1571

ENTERGY OPERATIONS INC.

SECTION: “H”(1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Bonus
Offset Issue (Doc. 210). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This is a multi-plaintiff action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) in which Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to compensate them
for overtime hours worked. Plaintiffs are or were employed by Defendant
Entergy Operations, Inc. and all held positions as “Security Shift Supervisors”
at the Waterford 3 nuclear plant in Killona, Louisiana (the “Plant”). Plaintiffs
contend that prior to 2009, security services at the Plant were outsourced to a
1

company that paid Plaintiffs an hourly wage and overtime. In 2009, Defendant
opted to move security forces in-house and transformed those positions into
exempt, salaried positions that were not entitled to overtime. Plaintiffs allege
they were misclassified under the FLSA and are entitled to overtime pay.
In deciding a series of motions for summary judgment, this Court held
that material issues of fact exist as to whether Plaintiffs were misclassified. It
also held, however, that if Plaintiffs are determined to have been misclassified,
the fluctuating workweek method applies to calculate their overtime
compensation. Further, the Court held that any overtime payment awarded to
Plaintiffs due to their misclassification shall be offset by bonuses they received
as part of the Management Incentive Program (MIP).
As a result of these holdings, two Plaintiffs were left without any
remaining justiciable issues, and this Court entered a partial judgment
dismissing their claims. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed this Court’s
grant of summary judgment on the fluctuating work week issue and remanded
without addressing the bonus offset issue. Plaintiffs now ask this Court to
reconsider its holding regarding bonus offset.
LEGAL STANDARD
A Motion for Reconsideration of an interlocutory order is governed by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which states that: “[A]ny order or other
decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the
rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to
any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of
a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and
2

liabilities.” “Under Rule 54(b), ‘the trial court is free to reconsider and reverse
its decision for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new
evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of the substantive law.’” 1
“‘[T]he power to reconsider or modify interlocutory rulings is committed to the
discretion of the district court, and that discretion is not cabined by the
heightened standards for reconsideration’ governing final orders.’” 2
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In its prior Order and Reasons, this Court held that any bonuses received
by Plaintiffs pursuant to the MIP must be offset against any overtime
compensation they are awarded. 3

The MIP is Defendant’s discretionary

incentive bonus program, which is available only to certain management-level
employees who are not entitled to overtime pay. The Court held that if
Plaintiffs were misclassified, then they were not entitled to MIP payments and
those bonuses were received in error.

In so holding, the Court relied on

Louisiana Civil Code article 2299 which states that “[a] person who has
received a payment or a thing not owed to him is bound to restore it to the
person from whom he received it.” The Court went on to state that:
To allow Plaintiffs to recover overtime payments and retain MIP
payments to which they would not have been entitled would be
inequitable at best. FLSA is intended to make plaintiffs whole and
avoid a windfall. Failure to offset the erroneous bonuses against
Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., No. 16-10502, 2017 WL 1379453, at *9 (5th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 185 (5th Cir. 1990)).
2 Id. (quoting Saint Annes Dev. Co. v. Trabich, 443 Fed. Appx. 829, 831–32 (4th Cir.
2011).
3 Doc. 158.
3
1

any overtime due would result in a windfall to Plaintiffs, and
summary judgment is therefore granted in Defendant’s favor. 4
Plaintiffs now ask this Court to reconsider this holding on the basis of
what they believe to be new and critical evidence. Plaintiffs argue that new
evidence has revealed that employees participating in the MIP program were
also entitled to receive additional bonuses for “above and beyond
contributions.” 5 These additional bonuses could be awarded for taking extra
shifts or working hours beyond what his or her salary required. Plaintiffs
argue that because other employees were entitled to retain both MIP bonuses
and additional bonuses sometimes given in recognition of working extra hours,
they too should be entitled to keep both their MIP bonuses and overtime pay.
It is clear from the evidence presented, however, that the additional
bonuses received by participants in the MIP were not FLSA overtime, even
when they were given in recognition of working additional hours. These facts
do nothing to change the basic underpinning of this Court’s prior ruling—
Plaintiffs are not entitled to MIP bonus payments if they are entitled to FLSA
overtime payments. Indeed, if Plaintiffs were misclassified, as they argue they
were, then they would not be entitled to either the MIP payments or these
discretionary bonuses. The fact that other employees received discretionary
bonuses for working additional hours is wholly irrelevant. Plaintiffs have not
convinced this Court that it erred, and the Court maintains its prior holding.

Id. at p. 20 (footnotes omitted).
Having found that these facts do not change this Court’s opinion, it need not address
the parties’ dispute regarding whether this evidence is actually new.
4
4
5

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 2nd day of January, 2018.

____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5