The Fair Labor Standards Act Statute of Limitations Limits Company Liability: Other than When It Doesn’t.

The Fair Labor Standards Act Statute of Limitations Limits Company Liability: Other than When It Doesn’t.

” Hard cases, it has often been observed, are apt to introduce bad law.”.
– Judge Robert Rolfe, Winterbottom v. Wright, 1842.” For the want of a nail … the Kingdom was lost”.
– Unknown.About a year earlier, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held in Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F. 3d 138 (4th Cir. 2014), a choice that has received little interest, that an employer covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (” FLSA”) who cannot maintain a published notice describing to covered workers their statutory right to minimum earnings and premium overtime pay might, as a result, surrender the right to assert an affirmative defense based upon the FLSA’s statute of constraints (or “SOL”).

The realities of Cruz are admittedly remarkable, however the holding invites an argument that a company whose just transgression is the failure to post or preserve the needed notice has actually lost the right to the defense that an FLSA claim, despite when the claim is submitted, is unfortunate and for that reason disallowed by law. That an SOL can be “tolled” based on equitable principles is barely news. Many litigators, however, might be shocked to learn that a defense as elementary (and occasionally crucial) as one based on an SOL can be lost by something as simple as the employer’s failure to post or preserve a statutorily-required notification of employee rights.

FLSA Requirements.

The FLSA needs nearly all companies to provide minimum per hour salaries and premium overtime pay to “nonexempt” staff members. 29 U.S.C. 206 and 207. The FLSA policies also require covered companies to “publish and keep posted a notice explaining the [FLSA] as recommended by the Wage and Hour Division [of the United States Department of Labor], in noticeable locations in every establishment where such staff members are employed so regarding permit them to observe easily a copy.” 29 C. F. R. 516.4 (2015).

FLSA enforces specific time limits by which aggrieved employees should submit match. These limits have been in location for so many years that attorneys who deal with FLSA claims, even knowledgeable legal representatives, rarely think about that complainants who bring such claims might be able to circumvent an applicable SOL and recuperate earnings that were due more, perhaps a lot more, than 3 years back.

Well, based upon Cruz, they might.

Income differences between rich and poor
Income differences between rich and poor

The Facts in Cruz.

The plaintiff, Cristina Cruz (a native of the Philippines), took legal action against Nilda Maypa and others, claiming that Maypa had actually required Cruz to work in the United States for wages less than those recommended by the FLSA from 2002 up until 2008. Prior to Cruz signed the agreement, Maypa told Cruz that she would pay her only $250 per month rather than the promised hourly wage. Cruz did not know that the FLSA requires a much greater minimum hourly wage.

According to the viewpoint, Cruz was required to work 7 days a week for 17 to 18 hours per day, and she was expected to remain on call at night. Cruz was never permitted to take a day off in the six years she stayed under Maypa’s control, even when ill.

As if that were not enough:

Cruz was reliant on them to help her call home to the Philippines and they would not pay for Cruz’s calls. When Cruz was able to call her household, the defendants monitored her conversations. The defendants likewise restricted Cruz from leaving their home alone other than to walk their aggressive pet dog.

In late 2007, Cruz’s worry of being caught with the defendants for the rest of her life started to exceed her worry of the repercussions of leaving. She called a pal living in the United States, who offered her the contact info for somebody who could assist her escape. On January 17, 2008, Cruz gathered all the papers she might find related to her work and migration status, lacked the home, and entered a waiting van.


Cruz (understandably) sued Maypa and others, however did refrain from doing so till more than five years after her escape. The accused (not remarkably) transferred to dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 12( b)( 6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that all of Cruz’s claims were timed-barred. The district court granted the defendants’ motion.

The Equitable Tolling Argument.

Cruz appealed and said that her FLSA claim should be equitably tolled under the real notice guideline stated in Vance v. Whirlpool Corp ., 716 F. 2d 1010 (4th Cir. 1983). The district court had actually rejected Cruz’s equitable tolling argument in the context of granting a motion to dismiss, so the Fourth Circuit evaluated the district court’s decisions de novo.

Cruz’s argument based upon Vance found a more receptive audience in the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit had formerly discovered in Vance that the district court had actually correctly held that the 180-day filing requirement of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (” ADEA”) — where filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC is a prerequisite to filing match– was told by reason of the complainant’s company’s failure to post statutory notification of workers’ rights under the ADEA.

The Fourth Circuit, doubtlessly moved by Cruz’s alleged “virtual jail time,” concluded that” [i] t makes great sense to extend our reasoning in Vance to the FLSA,” because:

Vance tolled an administrative filing due date rather than a statute of limitations, the FLSA lacks an equivalent management filing requirement; therefore, the FLSA’s due date to sue is, like the ADEA’s administrative filing deadline, the crucial juncture at which a complainant’s rights are maintained or lost. Neither the ADEA nor the FLSA inflicts statutory charges for failure to comply with the notification requirements. For all of these reasons, this Court’s analysis in Vance applies with equivalent force to the notice requirement of the FLSA.

773 F. 3d at 146-147 (internal quotation marks and citations left out, focus provided).

The Vance Analysis.

z2Exactly what is the Vance analysis? According to the Fourth Circuit, fair tolling, which is admittedly “a rare solution available just where the complainant has actually ‘exercised due diligence in maintaining her legal rights,'” is available just when “(1) the plaintiffs were prevented from asserting their claims by some kind of wrongful conduct on the part of the offender or (2) extraordinary circumstances beyond complainants’ control made it impossible to submit the claims on time.” Id. at 145-146. The court noted that Cruz’s “virtual jail time prevented her from looking for legal remedy,” which sounds as though the court had determined amazing scenarios beyond her control that made it impossible for her to submit her claims on time. You may find affordable trademark attorney here.

The Cruz court chose that such a reward is past due and that it needs to fill in the space. The Fourth Circuit therefore held that the tolling rule it had actually used to an ADEA claim in Vance uses simply as well to an FLSA claim of the kind made in Cruz.

The Fourth Circuit did not specifically state whether the company’s failure to adhere to the notification requirements of the FLSA totaled up to “wrongful conduct” on the part of the company, hence satisfying the very first trigger of the Vance test or “amazing scenarios beyond a plaintiff’s control,” therefore pleasing the second trigger of the Vance test. No matter which argument brings the most weight, the opinion plainly holds that an employer’s failure to post the required FLSA notice, standing alone, may require application of the extraordinary doctrine of equitable tolling, which might gut an otherwise readily available (and often dispositive) affirmative defense. See, e.g., Mata vs. G.O. Contractors Group, Ltd., 2015 WL 6674650, * _____ n. 1 (D. Md. 2015) (pointing out Cruz for the proposition that “the statute of constraints might be equitably tolled in cases in which an offender fails to post indications recommending staff members of their wage rights”).

Ramifications of Cruz.

Yes, but that may offer companies little convenience. If a complainant never ever retains counsel, or if the date of engagement is uncertain, then the employer will have to prove when the worker gotten actual knowledge of the staff member’s rights, which might be a considerable obstacle and might require a trial. The Cruz court showed that the factual record it was evaluating was restricted to the modified grievance, and it failed to determine when Cruz first kept a legal representative or found out of her rights under the FLSA.

Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to enable discovery to figure out whether Cruz’s FLSA claim was time-barred despite being equitably tolled.

Practice Pointers.

What does Cruz mean for lawyers handling FLSA claims and their customers in the Fourth Circuit? Attorneys representing companies in FLSA cases will definitely argue that Cruz needs to be limited to cases including realities as extraordinary as those present in that case, but the decision suggests a minimum of the following:

Complainants bringing FLSA claims for overdue salaries that were due more than three years before fit was filed may be able to get rid of the SOL by depending on equitable tolling if they can reveal that the company took part in “wrongful conduct” through nothing more than the failure to post or keep published the notice of worker rights needed by the FLSA.

An employer whose reliance upon an SOL has actually been brought into question based upon its failure to publish or preserve the needed notification might be required to show when the plaintiff maintained counsel or (more difficult) when the complainant gotten “real knowledge” of the plaintiff’s FLSA rights, which may in some cases scuttle any hope of getting termination of untimely claims on summary judgment, therefore increasing the potential settlement value of the case; and,

Companies had much better “post and keep published” the needed FLSA notification, or run the risk of the assertion of claims for unsettled incomes and equal liquidated damages, going back for many years, and lawyer’s charges.

The realities of Cruz appear to have made it an especially difficult case in which to reject relief to the plaintiff. In the words of Judge Rolfe, this might have resulted in “bad law” for all companies and their counsel in FLSA “failure to publish” cases.



p1Melissa Agnello earned her Ph.D. in microbiology in 2014 from the University of California at Los Angeles, an excellent achievement that opened her ability to wave bye-bye to a decade of student poverty and … be a little less poor. She’s doing post-doctoral research study now at the school, studying the microbiome, the germs that live on the body. The job pays $42,800 a year, which would be a king’s ransom in rural Arkansas but in southern California it implies a 45-minute commute to work from the place she and her other half can pay for to live. It’s likewise a position that pays no overtime, despite the fact that Agnello doesn’t actually have any responsibilities that may be considered supervisory, excusing her from overtime law. When she works 60 hours in a week, she makes the very same quantity of money as when she worked 40.

Plenty of American employees and plenty of worldwide employees have it even worse. Things are looking up for Agnello and an estimated 12.5 million employees throughout the country in the wake of an Obama administration change to the Fair Labor Standards Act announced last week, raising the wage threshold for overtime pay.

p2Business interests and the GOP roundly slammed the measure, calling the overtime growth a jobs killer and a ban on small businesses, however to the countless employees affected by the new law, it’s a welcome change.

The rule takes effect December 1, and it doubles the overtime income threshold, with automated updates every three years.

This is a step in the right direction to strengthen and secure the middle class by raising Americans’ incomes, Obama composed in an email to supporters. When workers have more income, they spend it often at companies in their regional community and that helps grow the economy for everyone.

Companies are moving quickly to find out how they’ll respond to the modifications. Eric Cook is associate director of human resources services at Mammoth HR, a Portland, Ore.-based speaking with company that encourages primarily small companies that can’t manage their own separate human resources departments. Recently was a busy one, Cook told Newsweek.

We’ve had a great deal of calls and questions, Cook said. We didn’t get many people really freaking out; typically, business owners and managers we’ve talked with are relatively practical people.

Exactly what the majority of Cook s clients are planning to do is offer their workers raises, bumping them up someplace above the new limit of $47,476, which will permit them to continue having employees put in more than 40 hours a week without overtime. Others are moving to reclassify workers as per hour, which isn’t in fact needed by the law but which some companies appear to believe will make it much easier to track overtime. Most of the services Cook works with have actually taken the news in stride, he stated.

All of the people I’ve seen on various social networks platforms predicting doom and gloom are company lobbyists or management lawyers, he stated. The arguments against it aren’t very compelling.

The Depression-era Fair Labor Standard Act s guarantee of a 40-hour workweek has been whittled away at since the late 1970s, according to the National Employment Law Project. The new guidelines guarantee overtime pay to a 3rd these days salaried workforce, the Law Project approximates, up from the 8 percent now covered. Current regulations give companies a significant loophole for preventing overtime pay, allowing them to classify workers earning just $23,440 as supervisors, though they have little supervisory or managerial tasks, then need them to put in extreme hours, without any pay at all for their overtime hours, Christine Owens, executive director of the company, stated in a statement.

p3Not-for-profit agencies are already undergoing training to get ready for the modification, Owens informed Newsweek. One Rochester, N.Y.-based agency has actually examined its work force of 500 staff members to identify who might be subject to the brand-new guideline, and is intending on executing new policies to include effectiveness in the work force and prevent employees from needing to put in more than 40 hours to get their jobs done. Others are adjusting salaries.

Many employers are still in the info event and sharing stage, Owens said.

The law is developed to provide one of two things, added Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the not-for-profit think tank the Economic Policy Institute: Either offer people a sensible work week, a work-life balance that Congress believes was the best one, or it’s supposed to compensate them when the employer doesn’t provide them that work-life balance, Eisenbrey informed Newsweek.

Staff members will now compute whether it makes more sense to bump people s salary or start paying overtime, Eisenbrey said. It gets harder when you have individuals making $30,000 and $35,000 who never ought to have been treated as exempt executives in the very first location. It’s a shame that the law was enabled to be made more or less obsolete for so long.

LIUNA Begins Distribution of $55 Million Fair Labor Standards Act Legal Settlement with Indian Health Service in New Mexico

LIUNA Begins Distribution of $55 Million Fair Labor Standards Act Legal Settlement with Indian Health Service in New Mexico

Indian Health Service (IHS) employees in New Mexico will meet May 23rd in Shiprock from 9AM-5PM, May 24th in Gallup from 9AM-5PM, May 25th in Crownpoint from 9AM-1PM and Zuni from 3PM-5PM, May 26th in Acomita from 9AM-11AM and Albuquerque from 2PM-5PM to receive Suffer or Permit (SPOT) affiant payments and learn ways to submit a claim online for unpaid entitlement to SPOT overtime payment from the $55 million Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) IHS Justice Fund.


The check distribution and asserts procedure is the end result of seven years of lawsuits and settlements led by LIUNA. This historical settlement contract for $55 million will be dispersed to present and former eligible IHS staff members who had actually methodically been cheated from compensation for overtime because of IHS violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act from 2006 to 2015.

p4” LIUNA is pleased to have won a settlement contract on behalf of countless dedicated and diligent people at the Indian Health Service,” stated LIUNA General President Terry O’Sullivan. “This is a tough fought victory for the IHS staff members who worked relentlessly to fulfill the health care requirements of the Native American neighborhood however didn’t receive fair compensation for their efforts.”

LIUNA represents approximately 11,000 IHS staff members; almost 90 percent of the company’s labor force.

Events will be held at New Mexico IHS work areas to offer checks to workers who helped secure the settlement by complying with LIUNA in the investigative and lawsuits phase of the disagreement. The LIUNA group and the Class Action Implementation Group, the circulation company selected by the union to disperse the Justice

Please wait...

Subscribe to our newsletter

Want to be notified when our article is published? Enter your email address and name below to be the first to know.