
Four Firm Partners Listed in 2010 Virginia Super Lawyers...
Posted on 6/25/2010
Court Certifies Overtime Collective Actions...
Posted on 6/14/2010
Attorney Butler Quoted in Article on Avoiding Religious Discrimination...
Posted on 6/10/2010
Unpaid Overtime Trifold (printable)
Kidd v. Walmart 11.12.09 Memorandum Opinion Excluding Defense Experts
The generally conservative Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling effectively granting class action status to a racial discrimination lawsuit originating out of South Carolina. The case involves alleged racial discrimination at a Nucor Steel plant. The Plaintiffs in the case claim, among other things, that African Americans were improperly denied promotions. They further allege that far more blatant incidents of racism took place at the plant as well. For example, the Plaintiffs contend that paraphernalia exhibiting the Confederate flag was available at the plant gift shop and that certain Caucasian employees openly used racial epithets while on the job.
Class status means that not only the named plaintiffs can be a party to a suit and that the interests of many, many affected people can be represented all at once. In this case, class status had been denied at the lower court level and was appealed to the Fourth Circuit. There, it was ultimately determined that the District Court Judge abused his discretion in refusing to certify the class.
The decision in Brown v. Nucor was just published on August 7, 2009 and can be found at Brown v. Nucor Corp., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17643. For a number of reasons, the opinion may be significant. For starters, it gives a clear roadmap on when and how a race class can win certification in the Fourth Circuit. Secondly, the opinion may signal a shift in how the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will treat similar cases going forward.
It is important to recognize that while this opinion marks a clear and decisive victory for the Plaintiffs, it says little about the merits of the case itself. The Court did not pass judgment on any facts or liability; it merely allowed the case to proceed as a class action. In laymen’s terms, the Plaintiffs won a big battle, but they have not yet won the war. It remains to be seen what happens next. Nevertheless, the precedential value of the Court’s opinion is undeniable as it will almost certainly play a prominent role in future discrimination actions where class status is sought.
Under a Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Opinion Letter dated January 25, 2007, on-property timeshare salespeople are entitled to overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours per week. The DOL Opinion Letter states that timeshare employees enaged in sales efforts on the employer's property and performing associated duties should be considered performing "inside sales" work and that such employees are entitled to overtime pay.
The timeshare industry has historically treated this work as "outside sales" (which would be exempt from overtime) and timeshare employers have not paid sales employees overtime. The issue applies to all on-property employees performing timeshare sales functions, including "front-line" sales, "in-house" sales, "take-over" sales/TO managers, "closers" and "exit department" sales, all of which may qualify for overtime payments depending on the circumstances of each case. Timeshare salespeople have often worked over 40 hours per week without overtime pay. Because the work is performed on the employer's property, the Opinion Letter states that the type of activity described in the Letter should be considered "inside sales" and that employees performing such work are entitled to overtime - they are not "exempt" employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the law which governs overtime pay.
The FLSA requires that employers who have not paid on-property timeshare sales employees overtime for all hours worked over 40 per week must pay their employees and former employees (1) their unpaid overtime; (2) liquidated damages equal to an additional like amount of unpaid overtime for two years from the date of filing a suit or an "opt-in" consent to join an existing suit (i.e. doubling the amount due) and (3) attorneys fees and costs of court. In the cases of willful violations, employers are required to pay unpaid overtime and liquidated damages for three years unpaid overtime.
Butler, Williams & Skilling, P.C. and Cupp & Cupp, P.C. presently represent a collective of approximately 145 timeshare sales employees for unpaid overtime pay and minimum wages against Massanutten Resort (owned by Great Eastern Resort Corporation and affiliated with and managed by The Berkley Group, Inc. family of resorts) in a claim pending in the Virginia state court in Rockingham County (Harrisonburg, Virginia).
Butler Williams & Skilling
100 Shockoe Slip
Fourth Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 648-4848
Fax: (804) 648-6814
Get Directions