On March 26, 2010, Law360 reported on U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Judge Deborah Chasanow’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss in Randolph v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., which we discussed here.  The opinion answers a question of first impression in the Fourth Circuit, holding that the Fair Labor Standard Act’s anti-retaliation provision protects disclosures to state labor agencies made in good faith. 

In the article, Mr. Woodfield points out that “under FLSA if you have a good faith belief in your claim, you are protected.”  When reporting violations to a state agency, “you don’t have to be correct, but you have to have a reasonable belief.”  Mr. Woodfield, the plaintiffs’ attorney, is a Principal at The Employment Law Group® law firm.  For more information about Mr. Woodfield and the firm’s Unpaid Overtime Practice, click here.

On March 24, 2010, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Judge Deborah Chasanow denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss in Randolph v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc..  This case presented an important question of first impression for the Fourth Circuit, namely whether employees, who were compensated with commissions based on sales, could complain to a state wage and hour board and be protected under the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) even if they were not entitled to overtime if they held a reasonable, good faith belief that they had been misclassified as commissions based employees and that they had been inadequately compensated for overtime work performed for the defendant. 

Plaintiffs Sharon Randolph and Tami Thompson filed a complaint with the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (DLLR), claiming that ADT failed to pay them overtime.  Randolph and Thompson were paid in commission for sales, however they thought they should have been compensated on an hourly basis and that they were entitled to overtime.  After being notified of the complaint, ADT terminated Randolph and Thompson for violating company policy by disclosing confidential information to the DLLR.  After their termination, the plaintiffs filed the present suit asserting that ADT violated the FLSA’s prohibition against retaliation and that their termination was wrongful under the Maryland public policy exception to at-will employment, known as an Adler tort claim. 

Relying in part on the only U.S. court of appeals case to address the application of § 215(a)(3) to state law, Sapperstein v. Hager, 188 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 1999), Judge Chasanow sided with the plaintiffs and will allow the case to go to trial.  A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available here.

For more information about The Employment Law Group® law firm and its Employment Law Practice, click here.

On April 8, 2009, a federal judge ordered Martin & Gass, Inc. (“M&G”) to pay back pay and damages to a former employee for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  The order  follows a March 2009 verdict, where the jury found that M&G failed to pay the plaintiff, Charles Alford, overtime wages for 288 hours during the time period from June 2005 to March 2008.  After the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Alford, M&G argued that it should not be required to pay liquidated or double damages because it did not willfully violate the FLSA.  The district court rejected this argument, finding that a lack of willfulness by itself is insufficient to demonstrate good faith and negate an award of liquidated damages.  According to the court, an employer may avoid liquidated damages if it can show that its failure to obey the statute was in “good faith and predicated upon such reasonable grounds that it would be unfair to impose…more than a compensatory verdict.”  Finding that M&G failed to make any inquiry before misclassifying Alford as an exempt employee, the court concluded that M&G was “at best extremely careless as to [its] obligation under the FLSA” and thus, it was liable for unpaid overtime as well as liquidated damages. 

This case is significant because it rejects the commonly held notion that liquidated damages under the FLSA can be awarded only where the employer’s conduct is willful and affirms the principle that “liquidated damages…are the norm” rather than the exception for violations of the FLSA.
The order and opinion in Alford v. Martin & Gass, Inc., No. 1:08cv595 (E.D. Va. April 8, 2009) is available here. 

Mr. Alford was represented by Scott Oswald and Nicholas Woodfield, Principals at The Employment Law Group® law firm.  For more information about The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Wage and Hour Practice, visit http://www.employmentlawgroup.net/PracticeAreas/Non-Payment-of-Wages.asp.

Principal Nicholas Woodfield of The Employment Law Group® law firm was featured on Avvo for his legal guide on wage and hour laws.  The guide which provides an overview of minimum wage and overtime standards established by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) can be found at http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/wage-hour-laws.  For more information about the FLSA and The Employment Law Group® law firm’s wage and hour practice, click here.