Williams v. Office Relocators (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Memorandum Opinion and Order Signed April 23, 2007--Judge J. Frederick Motz.

Gerald Williams, in an action against his former employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Maryland Wage & Hour Law ("MWHL"), and the Maryland Wage Payment & Collection Law ("MWPCL"), presented the question whether Williams, while employed by Maryland Office Relocators ("MOR") fell within a class of employees over whom the Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICC") has the power to establish "qualifications and maximum hours of service." If Williams does not fall under this exemption (the "Motor Carrier Act" exemption), it is undisputed that he is entitled to overtime pay. If, on the other hand, he does fall within the exemption, it is undisputed that he is not entitled to overtime pay.

In this instance, the critical consideration in determing whether Williams falls within the Motor Carrier Act exemption is whether his activities "affect safety of operation" of a motor vehicle in interstate commerce. Therefore, where the "continuing duties of the employee's job had no substantial direct effect on such safety of operation or where such safety-affecting activities are so trivial, casual, and insignificant as to be de minimus, the exemption will not apply to him in any work week so long as there is no change in his duties."

In testimony, MOR failed to present any person supervised by Williams, who saw Williams on a job, any truck driver or mover who worked with Williams on a job, or indeed any operations manager contradicting Williams' own description of the work he actually performed. This Court found that, as a result, the Motor Carrier Act exemption applied and Williams was entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA and MWHL.

Two ancillary questions relating to Williams' claims remained under the FLSA and MWHL. First, was Williams entitled to liquidated damages under the FLSA and, second, was MOR's non-payment of Williams' overtime compensation "willful" so as to entitle Williams to three, rather than two, years back overtime pay?

An employer who violates the terms of the FLSA "shall be liable to the employee(s) affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the cause may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages." However, if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or ommission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing his act or ommission was not a violation of the FLSA," a court may refuse to award liquidated damages or may award liquidated damages in an amount less than that of the unpaid overtime compensation. The employer bears the plain and substantial burden of pursuading the court by proof that his failure to obey the statute was both in good faith and predicated upon such reasonable grounds that it would be unfair to impose upon him more than a compensatory verdict. Here, MOR's averments were entirely insufficient and it was found liable for the liquidated damages.

The statute of limitations for the FLSA is normally two years. However, if a plaintiff can demonstrate that the defendant's violation was "willful," the plaintiff may recover for the preceding three years. Violations are "willful" if the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof of whether the defendant's actions were willful.

Williams' final claim for treble damages under the MWPCL was found without merit. Williams' claim was governed by the FLSA and the MWHL, not the MWPCL.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Frank v. Home Depot (Maryland U.S.D.C.) (Approved for Publication)

Signed April 11, 2007. Memorandum Opinion by William D. Quarles, Jr. (Approved for publication).

Opinion granting defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Issues: Did a prior dismissal, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim bar litigation of the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract where the claim was based on the same alleged wrong and the parties to the suit were identical?

Did the statute of limitations or statutory qualified immunity bar the plaintiff's claim against his former employer for defamation arising in the context of providing a prospective employer a negative employment reference?

Held: Yes to both. The plaintiff's claim for breach of contract alleged the same wrong as his previous claim for discriminatory termination. Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata applied. In addition, the statute of limitations barred the plaintiff's claim for defamation where the claim was filed more than 1 year after the alleged wrong. Even if it did not, the qualified privilege set forth in Md. Code. Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. s. 5-423, precluded the plaintiff's claim, absent evidence of malice or intentional or reckless disclosure of false information.

Facts: Home Depot fired the plaintiff for falsely stating that he was properly licensed to operate a forklift. When the plaintiff subsequently applied for a job at Lowe's, Lowe's contacted Home Depot for a reference. A Home Depot employee allegedly told Lowe's that the plaintiff was fired for theft.

The plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for for retaliatory and discriminatory discharge in violation of Title VII and Maryland law. The court dismissed the claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Then the plaintiff filed suit, alleging breach of contract and wrongful discharge, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. Home Depot removed the case to the U.S. District Court. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, restating the breach of contract claim and adding a defamation claim.

Home Depot moved for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim on the grounds that 1) the plaintiff was an "at will" employee, and 2) the doctrine of res judicata, arising from the prior dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), barred the claim. Home Depot moved for summary judgment on the defamation claim on grounds that 1) it was filed more than 1 year after the alleged wrong, and 2) the claim was barred by privilege under Md. Code. Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. s. 5-423.

Applying the elements of res judicata, the court found that 1) the earlier dismissal was an adjudication on the merits, 2) the two lawsuits "centered" on the same alleged wrong, and 3) the parties were identical. Accordingly, the court held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the plaintiff's breach of contract claim.

Turning to the defamation claim, the court found that the alleged defamation occurred more than 1 year before the filing of the complaint. As the statutory limitations period for defamation in Maryland is 1 year, the court held that the claim was barred.

The court further held that, even were the claim not barred by the statute of limitations, the qualified privilege afforded to employers under Md. Code. Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. s. 5-423 would bar the claim. The privilege bars claims against employers for giving good faith references to prospective employers. An employer is “presumed to be acting in good faith unless it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the employer: 1) acted with actual malice toward the employee or former employee; or 2) intentionally or recklessly disclosed false information about the employee or former employee.” The plaintiff offered no evidence supporting a finding of actual malice or intentional or reckless disclosure. Accordingly, the privilege barred his claim.

The Memorandum Opinion is available in PDF format.