MOZINGO et al v. OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C. et al

Filing 483

ORDER-MEMORANDUM: upon considering the Group 2 Plaintiffs' Motionfor liquidated damages following the jury verdict (ECF Doc. No. 455), Defendant's Response (ECF Doc. No. 478) and Plaintiffs' Reply (ECF Doc. No. 479), it is ORDERED the Group 2 Plaintiffs' Motion (ECF Doc. No. 387) under§ 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act to double the jury's March 16, 2018 award of unpaid overtime compensation to each of the Group 2 Plaintiffs as liquidated damages is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Mark A. Kearney on 4/30/2018. (kly)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION

SAMMY MOZINGO, et al

v.

NO. 15-529

OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES,
L.L.C.,

ORDER-MEMORANDUM
AND NOW, this 30th day of April 2018, upon considering the Group 2 Plaintiffs' Motion
for liquidated damages following the jury verdict (ECF Doc. No. 455), Defendant's Response
(ECF Doc. No. 478) and Plaintiffs' Reply (ECF Doc. No. 479), it is ORDERED the Group 2
Plaintiffs' Motion (ECF Doc. No. 387) under§ 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act to double
the jury's March 16, 2018 award of unpaid overtime compensation to each of the Group 2
Plaintiffs as liquidated damages is GRANTED.
Analysis
Employees working on fracking drill sites sued their former employer Oil States for
failing to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Given different job responsibilities
and to efficiently manage proofs for several different employees, we scheduled three trials in
groups of four to six employees. 1 We tried the first group of employees in Fall 2017 and,
following the jury's verdict in the employees' favor, we granted the employees' motion for

1

ECF Doc. No. 224.

liquidated damages finding Oil States did not adduce evidence of its good faith and reasonable
efforts to determine whether it should pay overtime to these employees. 2
We tried the second group of employees ("Group 2 Plaintiffs") last month. The parties
largely repeated evidence from the first trial concerning Oil States' good faith and reasonable
grounds for believing the employees were exempt from overtime. To supplement its proofs from
the first trial, Oil States hoped to adduce evidence from one of its employees - Rhonda Totten who allegedly played a role in deciding whether to characterize the Group 2 Plaintiffs as exempt
from overtime. Consistent with Oil States' discovery responses, we permitted Ms. Totten to
testify only as to "knowledge of human resources support for the locations at issue."3

Shortly

before trial, Oil States filed an unsolicited "report" again asking to expand Ms. Totten's
testimony beyond Oil States' years of discovery representations. 4 The Plaintiffs moved again to
preclude any effort to expand Ms. Totten's testimony based on a "report." We entertained oral
argument before trial.
Following oral argument, we granted the Group 2 Plaintiffs' motion to exclude testimony
as to her role in deciding the exemption because Oil States did not disclose her role in response
to a specific discovery interrogatory and only identified her as having knowledge of human
resources support for the locations at issue. 5 Given the omnipresent issue of Oil States' decision
to treat the employees as exempt, we could not liberally rewrite Oil States' years of discovery
representations which did not disclose her knowledge or role in deciding the exempt status of the
2

ECF Doc. No. 399.

3

ECF Doc. No. 388.

4

ECF Doc. No. 421.

5

ECF Doc. No. 430.
2

employees.

If, as Oil States argued on the eve of trial, Ms. Totten played a central role in

deciding the exempt status, it should have candidly answered the Plaintiffs' April 22, 2016
Interrogatory No. 22 asking to "[i]dentify each of your employees who was involved in
determining whether the ... Plaintiffs were subject to the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ... " 6 Oil States identified five of its employees (all of whom testified) but not Ms.
Totten.

Reacting to the jury's rejection of this testimony at the first trial, Oil States sought to

add Ms. Totten as a witness. Oil States explained its change of strategy on its interpretation of
the time frame suggested by the Interrogatory. But the Interrogatory does not have a time frame.
After oral argument, we found no good cause to allow this last-minute witness although each of
the five identified witnesses could testify as to Oil States' decision.
The jury returned a verdict in the Group 2 Plaintiffs' favor for two years of overtime
compensation. 7 Unlike the jury for the Group 1 Plaintiffs, the jury in the Group 2 Plaintiffs' trial
found Oil States did not act willfully or recklessly in failing to pay them overtime compensation
sufficient to allow recovery for a third year of unpaid overtime.
The Group 2 Plaintiffs now move for liquidated damages arguing Oil States again did not
adduce evidence of good faith and reasonable grounds for believing its decision to not pay
overtime did not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Oil States responds we erred in applying

a standard existing at the time of Oil States' decision - and at trial - but possibly changed by the
Supreme Court's April 2, 2018 decision in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro. 8 Oil States also

6

ECF Doc. No. 429-1, pp. 9-10.

7

ECF Doc. No. 451.

8

-

U.S. - , 138 S.Ct. 1134 (2018).

3

again argues their testimony satisfies the standard of good faith necessary to avoid liquidated
damages. Oil States speculates as to jury confusion based on jury questions.
We addressed Oil States' arguments on its adduced evidence of good faith in our
November 30, 2017 Memorandum. 9 We incorporate our reasoning in again finding Oil States
has not adduced evidence of good faith.

We appreciate Oil States disagrees with the jury's

verdict and would like, as any advocate would, to discern meaning from a jury's questions. But
whatever the jury thought in deliberations does not alter Oil States' burden. The jury returned a
verdict for the Group 2 Plaintiffs - as it did for the Group 1 Plaintiffs last Fall.
The wrinkle now presented is whether we can find Oil States adduced evidence of good
faith because its conduct in 2012-2015 should be evaluated under an alleged change in the Law
on April 2, 2018. Oil States argues uncertainty in the Law excuses its good faith review of
whether the Group 2 Plaintiffs are exempt from overtime. We cannot reach this far. 10 Oil States
might be closer to the required good faith if it adduced evidence of reviewing the issues and
reaching some form of considered decision. There is no evidence of this effort. And there is
none - nor could there be - evidence of Oil States reviewing a possible April 2018 change in the
way we review exemptions when it decided not to pay overtime compensation from 2013 to
2015.

9

ECF Doc. No. 398.

10

See Souryavong v. Lackawanna County, 872 F.3d 122, 125 (3d Cir. 2017)(citing Martin v.
Cooper Elec. Supply Co., 940 F.2d 896, 910 (3d Cir. 1991)).
4