) Amerlcan ArblLraLlon AssoclaLlon

clolmoot )
)
vs )
)
)
Cypresslalrbanks Medlcal )
CenLer PosplLal )
kespooJeot )




Case number____________________


CLAIMAN1S' CkIGINAL L1I1ICN


A D|scovery Contro| |an
ClalmanL lnLends Lo conducL dlscovery under Lhe Amerlcan ArblLraLlon AssoclaLlons LmploymenL ArblLraLlon 8ules"

8 art|es
ClalmanL ls eltb Mettltt a naLural person and resldenL of 1exas 8espondenL ls cyptessloltbooks MeJlcol ceotet
nospltol a buslness enLlLy LhaL may be served aL 10633 SLeepleLop urlve PousLon 1exas 77063


C Iur|sd|ct|on
1he Amerlcan ArblLraLlon AssoclaLlon has [urlsdlcLlon over Lhls maLLer arlslng from a slgned conLracLual agreemenL Lo
arblLraLe employmenL dlspuLes beLween Lhe parLles 1he llmlLaLlons perlod ls Lwo years from Lhe vlolaLlon lengLhened Lo
Lhree years lf Lhe vlolaLlon(s) are wlll full"

D Ienue
1he venue of PousLon 1exas ls proper as boLh parLles are locaLed Lhere

L acts
1he clalmanL has noL been pald for all hours worked daLlng back Lo 2008 1he hosplLal auLomaLlcally deducLs LhlrLy
mlnuLes of pay each day an employee works 1hls deducLlon ls supposed Lo be for an unpald meal break A ma[orlLy of Lhe
Llme Lhese breaks are unable Lo be Laken aL all are cuL shorL and are less Lhan LhlrLy mlnuLes or Lhe employee may eaL
buL musL also engage ln Lhe monlLorlng of paLlenLs paLlenL alarms aLLend Lo phone calls and oLher work Lasks 8eferrlng
Lo uCL regulaLlons (29 Cl8 78319) whlle on a meal break Lhe employee musL noL be engaged ln any work acLlvlLy eveo
posslve such as walLlng for a phone Lo rlng 1he naLure of Lhe nurses' legal duLy Lo a paLlenL ls such LhaL Lhe nurse musL be
relleved of duLy by anoLher nurse ln order Lo no longer be engaged ln work acLlvlLy (1) (2) (3) 1he hosplLal conslsLenLly
falls Lo provlde adequaLe rellef deprlvlng Lhe clalmanL of Lhe ablllLy Lo Lake a meal break as descrlbed under 29 Cl8
78319 yeL sLlll deducLlng sald meal breaks from hls pay 1he hosplLals nurslng dlrecLor and Lhe clalmanLs manager have
been aware of Lhls slnce 2008 and have noL Laken sLeps Lo recLlfy Lhe problem maklng lL a wlll full vlolaLlon
Damages
1 1he clalmanL requesLs a sum of $8000 ln acLual economlc damages 1hls amounL reflecLs Lhe number of deducLed
buL unLaken meal breaks aL Lhe clalmanLs prevalllng raLe of pay aL Lhe Llme of Lhe vlolaLlon 1he clalmanL pleads LhaL
Lhe vlolaLlons were wlll full and should cover a Lhree year perlod of back pay Some of Lhls unpald Llme would have
been overLlme" and compensaLed aL LhaL raLe
2 1he clalmanL requesLs and addlLlonal sum equal Lo Lhe amounL of acLual damages ln Lhe form of llquldaLed damages
under 29 uSC ChapLer 8 SubsecLlon 216 (b) of $8000
G rayer

lor Lhese reasons clalmanL asks LhaL respondenL be clLed Lo appear and answer and on flnal dlsposlLlon LhaL Lhe clalmanL
have [udgmenL agalnsL respondenL for Lhe followlng

a Lconomlc damages
b Lxemplary damages as allowed by law
c re and posL [udgmenL lnLeresL as allowed by law
d CosL of sulL
e All oLher rellef ln law and ln equlLy Lo whlch Lhe clalmanL may be enLlLled



1 1exas 8oard of nurses oslLlon SLaLemenL 136
2 1exas nurslng racLlce AcL 21711(1) (8)
3 1exas 8oard of nurses oslLlon SLaLemenL 1314





8especLfully SubmlLLed









8kIL IN SUCk1 C CLAIMAN1
(8L unpald wages)


I8ackground

1he clalmanL ls a reglsLered nurse and has been employed wlLh 1eneL healLhcare for flfLeen years
1he pasL flve years he has been employed aL Cypresslalrbank PosplLals' Lmergency room on a full Llme basls
Slnce havlng been employed ln Lhe Lmergency 8oom Lhe clalmanL has been havlng dlfflculLy belng
relleved from duLy for meal breaks 1hese LhlrLy mlnuLe breaks are auLomaLlcally deducLed from hls pay wheLher
Lhey are Laken or noL 1he procedure for belng compensaLed for a mlssed meal break ls Lo flll ouL a Llme edlL sheeL
Lo be submlLLed Lo payroll 1hls should be a slmple process buL lL ls noL ayroll wlll re[ecL Lhe requesL wlLhouL Lhe
proper slgnaLure SomeLlmes Lhey wlll accepL a charge nurses slgnaLure someLlmes Lhey won'L some charge
nurses wlll slgn oLhers wlll noL SomeLlmes Lhe manager wlll slgn oLher Llmes she won'L MosL recenLly Lhe
clalmanL presenLed a Llme edlL sheeL Lo manager on !uly 2
nd
2010 Lo be slgned by her She refused Lo slgn clLlng
Lhe facL LhaL Lhe Lmergency 8oom had noL been LhaL busy" 1lme edlLs submlLLed Lo Lhe hosplLal have been
refused on several oLher occaslons (SepLember 23
rd

2010) as well

uue Lo Lhe nurses legal duLy Lo a paLlenL a nurse can'L [usL go on break aL wlll Lhe nurse has Lo have
anoLher nurse accepL Lhe duLy of carlng for hls paLlenLs Lven lf Lhe nurse requesLlng a break only has one or no
paLlenLs and regardless of how busy Lhe unlL ls on a parLlcular day 8elng off Lhe unlL or noL acLlvely avallable can
sub[ecL Lhe nurse Lo clalms of paLlenL abandonmenL (1) (2) (3)

8ecenLly Lhe L8 has lmplemenLed a lunch buddy" sysLem where Lwo nurses are palred LogeLher and are
Lo relleve each oLher for lunch 1here are several problems wlLh Lhls 1he rellevlng nurse Lhen has slx paLlenLs and
dependlng ln Lhe aculLy of each ofLen LhaL ls Loo many Secondly one nurse can'L JemooJ Lhe oLher nurse accepL
responslblllLy for hls paLlenLs lunch buddy" or noL 1hlrdly Lhe clalmanL has uLlllzed Lhls sysLem only Lo have hls
paLlenLs' condlLlons and needs lgnored by hls lunch buddy" leadlng Lo nurslng care and paLlenL saLlsfacLlon lssues
for whlch he has been dlsclpllned for

WlLh a comblnaLlon of an unwllllngness Lo ouLrlghL refusal Lo slgn Llme edlLs and a sysLem where
lnadequaLe and safe (for paLlenLs) rellef for breaks exlsLs Lhe hosplLal has effecLlvely prevenLed Lhe clalmanL from
elLher Laklng an unpald break or recelvlng pay for worklng Lhrough lL

Cn Lhe rare occaslon LhaL Lhe clalmanL ls able Lo begln an unpald meal break he ls ofLen called off Lhe
break afLer only flve Lo Len mlnuLes Lo aLLend Lo paLlenL lssues phone calls and paLlenL alarms and call bells 1hls
vlolaLes Lhe lalr Labor SLandards AcL on compensable Llme (4) (3) ueparLmenL Cf Labor 8egulaLlons (29 Cl8
78319) sLaLe whlle on a meal break Lhe employee musL noL be engaged ln any work acLlvlLy eveo posslve such
as walLlng for a phone Lo rlng

Lmployees musL be pald for all hours worked unforLunaLely Lhe lLSA does noL glve a deflnlLlon for hours
worked 1he closesL deflnlLlon ls a provlslon LhaL speclfles Lhe Lerm employ" meanlng to soffet let ot petmlt to
wotk" Powever Lhe uS Supreme CourL has made several rullngs on cases LhaL have held LhaL hours worked
lnclude any Llme spenL ln pbyslcol ot meotol exettloo tbot ls coottolleJ ot tepolteJ by tbe employet" and all hours
an employee ls requlred Lo glve Lo an employer 1hls lncludes walLlng Llme lf lL ls for Lhe employer's beneflL and all
Lhe Llme durlng a workweek LhaL an employee ls requlred Lo be on Lhe employer's premlses 1herefore Lo comply
wlLh Lhe lLSA hours worked needs Lo lnclude noL only hour's acLually performlng [ob duLles buL also any oLher
hours suffered or petmltteJ to wotk by Lhe employer for Lhe employer's beneflL Work noL requesLed buL suffered
or petmltteJ ls work Llme ln shorL lf Lhe hosplLal does noL acLlvely provlde meal break rellef Lhen Lhe Llme ls
compensable and needs Lo be pald

lf Lhe employer knows or has reason Lo belleve Lhe work ls belng performed Lhe employer musL counL lL
as hours worked ln all such cases lL ls Lhe duLy of Lhe managemenL Lo exerclse lLs conLrol and see LhaL Lhe work ls
noL performed lf lL does noL wanL lL Lo be performed Lmployers cannoL slL back and accepL Lhe beneflLs wlLhouL
compensaLlng for Lhem 1he mere creaLlon of a rule agalnsL such work ls noL enough ManagemenL has Lhe power
Lo enforce Lhe rule and musL make every efforL Lo do so

1he manager has menLloned LhaL lL seems as lf Lhe clalmanL ls Lhe only one wlLh Lhls complalnL 1haL ls for
several reasons MosL oLher employees do noL geL Lo Lake or geL pald from breaks elLher buL Lhey are afrald of
reLallaLlon and Lherefore do noL rock Lhe boaL CLher nurses are buddles wlLh Lhe charge nurses and Lhe charge
nurses go ouL of Lhelr way Lo provlde rellef for Lhem a conslderaLlon noL provlded Lo Lhe clalmanL 1he clalmanL ls
also under closer scruLlny Lhan oLher sLaff members due Lo hls poslLlon as a unlon sLeward so paLlenL lssues and
complalnLs whlle he ls on break are acLed on where Lhey mlghL noL be lf anoLher nurse was lnvolved

1he clalmanL had conLacLed aLLl 8enneLL Lhe ulrecLor of nurses ln 2008 Lo dlscuss Lhe problem Slnce
Lhen noLhlng has been resolved 1he clalmanL has walLed unLll recenLly Lo apply more pressure Lo Lhe hosplLal Lo
elLher provlde for breaks or pay hlm for Llme worked Pls reason for dolng so ls relaLlvely recenL employmenL
proLecLlons afforded by a collecLlve bargalnlng agreemenL beLween Lhe hosplLal and Lhe clalmanLs nurslng unlon

1he clalmanL has flled a complalnL wlLh Lhe 1exas Workforce Commlsslon (1WC) 1he 1WC has Lhe ablllLy
Lo aLLempL Lo collecL back pay for a prevlous slx monLh perlod 1he lalr Labor SLandards AcL" (29 uSC ChapLer 8
SubsecLlons 201219) allows for a llmlLaLlons perlod of Lwo years for a clalmanL Lo flle sulL and up Lo Lhree years lf
Lhe vlolaLlon ls wlll full SubsecLlon 216(b) allows for an equal amounL of Lhe unpald wage Lo be awarded as
llquldaLed damages

AfLer repeaLed requesLs Lhe hosplLal has been unable Lo demonsLraLe LhaL Lhe clalmanL dld lndeed Lake a
lunch on any of Lhe days ln quesLlon 1hey have been unable Lo provlde clock ln/ouL lnformaLlon from Lhe
auLomaLed Llmekeeplng sysLem (kronos) nor have Lhey produced a Llme log alluded Lo ln Lhelr own lnLernal
pollcles on Llmekeeplng (1lmekeeplng301 Puman 8esources ollcy 302Cl)

IIIur|sd|ct|on

1he Amerlcan ArblLraLlon AssoclaLlon's [urlsdlcLlon over Lhls maLLer ls derlved from a conLracL beLween
Lhe clalmanL and Cypresslalrbanks PosplLal enLlLled Lmployee AcknowledgmenL lorm" 1he conLracL mandaLes
flnal and blndlng arblLraLlon for all lssues arlslng ouL of employmenL" 1he conLracL requlres Lhe employee Lo
uLlllze Lhe faclllLles lnLernal grlevance process referred Lo as Lhe lalr 1reaLmenL rocess" 1hls ls a four sLep
process culmlnaLlng ln Lhe flnal and blndlng arblLraLlon menLloned above 1hls process was uLlllzed by Lhe parLles
and Lhey were unable Lo resolve Lhe lssue

1he hosplLals reglsLered nurses lncludlng Lhe clalmanL are represenLed by Lhe naLlonal nurses
Crganlzlng CommlLLee" (nnCC) as Lhelr represenLaLlve for collecLlve bargalnlng A collecLlve bargalnlng
agreemenL (C8A) exlsLs beLween Lhe respondenL and Lhe nnCC 1hls conLracL Look effecL someLlme ln !uly or
AugusL of 2010 Whlle Lhe C8A has lLs own grlevance procedure lL also sLaLes ln ArLlcle 9(P) LhaL
1he parLles agree thot nothinq in this 4qreement sho// offect the enforceobi/ity of ony keqistered
Nurses existinq oqreement to be bound by the 1enet loir 1reotment Process (l1") inc/udinq by either
fino/ ond bindinq orbitrotion under the 4mericon 4rbitrotion 4ssociotion mp/oyment uispute keso/ution
ku/es wlLh respecL Lo any dlspuLe noL oLherwlse arblLrable under Lhe CollecLlve 8argalnlng AgreemenL 1he
parLles furLher agree LhaL Lhe laclllLy may requesL LhaL any currenLly employed or newlyhlred 8eglsLered
nurse volunLarlly execuLe and acknowledgemenL from llkewlse agreelng Lo be bound by Lhe l1 wlLh
respecL Lo any dlspuLes noL oLherwlse arblLrable under Lhls collecLlve bargalnlng agreemenL no reLallaLlon
or adverse acLlon may be Laken agalnsL anyone who exerclses Lhe opLlon noL Lo slgn Lhe l1 lurLher any
8eglsLered nurse who lnlLlally decllnes Lo be bound by Lhe l1 may laLer elecL Lhls opLlon wlLh respecL Lo
any parLlcular clalm normally sub[ecL Lo Lhe l1 and noL oLherwlse arblLrable under Lhls collecLlve
bargalnlng agreemenL and wlll be lnformed of Lhls rlghL by Lhe laclllLy noLhlng hereln shall preclude any
8eglsLered nurse or Lhe laclllLy from seeklng Lo challenge or enforce Lhe l1 lncludlng Lhe obllgaLlon Lo
arblLraLe"

1he C8A llmlLs grlevable clalms under ArLlcle 10 Lo

!74.0/:70
A grieance is deined as a dispute as to the interpretation, meaning or application o a speciic proision o this
Agreement

1hls clalm ls clalm for unpald wages (as overLlme and base pay) under Lhe lLSA 29 uSC ChapLer 8
and concurrenLly under Lhe 1exas Labor Code 1lLle 2 SubLlLle C ChapLer 61 (paymenL of wages) 1hls clalm ls noL ln
regards Lo a provlslon of Lhe C8A 1herefore Lhe C8A should noL apply and Lhe sub[ecL maLLer should be arblLrable
under Lhe l1/Lmployee AcknowledgmenL lorm AddlLlonally any clalm LhaL orlglnaLed before Lhe conLracL was
raLlfled would noL be sub[ecL Lo Lhe provlslons of Lhe conLracL as Lhere ls no provlslon for reLroacLlve enforcemenL
of Lhe C8A and language speclflc LhaL Lhe conLracL ls noL reLroacLlve

1he C8A sLaLes

ArLlcle 11 Pours of work CverLlme and Schedullng

@be loclllty wlll comply wltb oll oppllcoble locol 5tote ooJ leJetol woqe and hour tepoltemeots"

1hls would Lend Lo conLracLually place Lhe maLLer back under Lhe sLaLe and federal laws clLed by Lhe
clalmanL as Lhe basls for Lhls case



lll Ja|ver of k|ghts

1he clalmanL has noL walved hls ablllLy Lo pursue Lhls acLlon by arblLraLlon 1he clalmanLs'
employmenL wlLh Lhe faclllLy ended on May 3
rd
2011 1he clalmanL was LermlnaLed and flled a grlevance wlLh hls
represenLaLlve unlon As parL of resolvlng Lhe grlevance Lhe hosplLal reversed Lhe clalmanLs' LermlnaLlon and he
Lhen reslgned and ln accordance wlLhdrew hls unlon grlevance 1he faclllLy now conLends LhaL Lhe clalmanL
walved all rlghLs Lo acLlons relaLed Lo hls employmenL 1hls ls slmply noL Lrue 1he faclllLy has Lhe burden Lo Lry Lo
prove Lhls lf Lhey deslre Lo use Lhls nonexlsLenL walver as an afflrmaLlve defense Lo Lhls acLlon

lLSA clalms cannoL be walved by r|vate re|eases 1he seLLlemenL of wage clalms musL be made
under a uCL supervlsed seLLlemenL under 29 uSC SubsecLlon 216 (c) 1he courLs have re[ecLed prlvaLe walvers of
lLSA clalms because Lhe rlghLs are of a prlvaLe/publlc naLure and Lo walve Lhem ls lncongruenL wlLh publlc pollcy
LhaL Lhe lLSA was deslgned Lo effecLuaLe tooklyo 5ov ook 324 uS aL 70607 and 5cbolte v Cooql 328 uS 108
(1946) and Mccoooell v ApplleJ letfotmooce @ecbs loc 2002 WL 483340 (Su Chlo 2002)

ConslsLenL wlLh Lhls concepL Lhe rlghL Lo pursue lLSA acLlons cannoL be walved by a collecLlve
bargalnlng agreemenL elLher otteotloe v Atkoososest ltelqbt 5ystem loc 430 uS 728 (1981) and @eooessee
cool ltoo k co v MoscoJo locol No 321 uS 390 (1944)

Any walver clalmed Lo have been slgned would noL comply wlLh SubsecLlon 216(c) (5oeeJ v 5oeeJs
5blpbollJloq loc 343 l2d 337339 (3
Lh
Clrc 1977) and 5olls v notelscom @exos loc 2004 WL 1923734 (nu 1ex
2004)
Any walver sald Lo be agreed upon musL be slgned" and noL verbal woltoo v uolteJ coosomets
clob 786 l2d 303 307 (7
Lh
Clr 1986)


II Mer|ts of C|a|m and Cost of Su|t

1he basls for Lhe arblLraLlon beLween Lhe parLles ls a conLracLual agreemenL (Lmployee
AcknowledgemenL lorm) 1he conLracL and rules for arblLraLlon cap Lhe employees' expenses aL $130 Lhe
remalnder of Lhe cosLs of Lhe sulL lL Lo be borne by Lhe employer

1he Amerlcan 8ule" would preclude Lhe respondenL from collecLlng aLLorneys' fees ln Lhls acLlon
even lf Lhey were Lo prevall 1here ls no sLlpulaLlon ln conLracL for arblLraLlon allowlng for aLLorneys' fees 1he
conLracL ls qulLe expllclL ln llmlLlng Lhe expenses Lo Lhe employee

1here ls also no basls under Lhe lederal ArblLraLlon AcL" (9 uSC SecLlon 1 eL seq) or Lhe 1exas
ArblLraLlon AcL" (1exas Clvll racLlce 8emedles Code ChapLer 171 Ceneral ArblLraLlon) for Lhe respondenL Lo
recover aLLorneys' fees as a resulL of Lhls arblLraLlon sulL

1here are genulne quesLlons Lo be answered aL a hearlng All avenues avallable Lo Lhe clalmanL were
exhausLed prlor Lo flllng Lhls hearlng 1he clalmanL uLlllzed Lhe hosplLals lnLernal grlevance process Lhe lalr
1reaLmenL rocess" (l1) lnlLlaLed ln SepLember 2010 1he grlevanL also Lrled Lo resolve Lhe lssue dlrecLly wlLh
Lhe hosplLal and requesLed medlaLlon Lhrough Lhe AAA whlch Lhe respondenL decllned

1hls brlef was also forwarded Lo Lhe hosplLal (respondenL) along wlLh Lhe orlglnal pleadlng before
flllng 1he clalmanL recelved no response from Lhe respondenL as Lo any ob[ecLlon or defense Lo Lhe clalm and
Lherefore has proceeded accordlngly

1he clalmanL has exhausLed all non arblLraLlon avenues prlor Lo flllng Lhls acLlon

I Conc|us|on

1he hosplLal Lhrough a comblnaLlon of auLomaLlcally deducLlng LhlrLy mlnuLes each workday for a
meal break noL allowlng meal breaks and noL compensaLlng Lhe clalmanL for worklng Lhrough meal breaks and
refuslng (by managemenL) Lo slgn or acknowledge Llme edlLs" has avolded paylng Lhe clalmanL for all hours
worked over Lhe pasL Lhree years Some of Lhls Llme would have consLlLuLed overtime under Lhe lLSA
1he faclllLles admlnlsLraLlon was aware of Lhls as far back as 2008 and has done llLLle Lo correcL Lhe
lssue 1he clalmanL flled boLh an lnLernal grlevance under Lhe l1 and a wage clalm wlLh Lhe 1exas Workforce
Commlsslon (1WC) 1he faclllLles acLlons were wlll full as Lhe faclllLy was aware Lhe clalmanL was noL belng pald
for all hours worked and dld noL do enough Lo correcL Lhe lssue 1he L8 manager expressly refuslng Lo slgn Lhe
requlred Llme edlLs even afLer mulLlple submlsslons whlch are necessary ln order for payroll Lo effecLuaLe
paymenL Lo Lhe clalmanL llkewlse consLlLuLes wlll full" nonpaymenL under Lhe acL

1herefore Lhe faclllLy should be llable Lo Lhe clalmanL for all unpald hours over Lhe pasL Lhree years
and for an equal amounL ln llquldaLed damages lncludlng boLh unpald regular hours and overLlme hours (pursuanL
Lo uSC 29 ChapLer 8 SubsecLlon 207 Maxlmum Pours")





C|a|mant |s not an "exemt" em|oyee under the LSA

1he clalmanL ls covered by Lhe lLSA provlslons based on Lhe followlng crlLerla

A Salary level LesL Lhe clalmanL earned less Lhan $100000 a year durlng Lhe Lhree year
perlod
8 Salary basls 1esL Lhe clalmanL was an hourly raLe worker and noL salarled durlng Lhe Lhree
year perlod
C uuLles LesLLhe clalmanL was a manager" and had no execuLlve duLles (8ona flde execuLlve
admlnlsLraLlve or professlonal capaclLy) under 29uSC 213(a)
u Learned professlonal exempLlon ln order Lo meeL Lhe professlonal exempLlon Lhe
employee musL also meeL Lhe salary exempLlon ooesb v klte AlJ cotp 39 lSupp2d
(uuC 1999) 1he exempLlon also requlres knowledge ln a fleld of sclence Lo aL leasL a Lhe
level of a bachelors degree ebejloo v Atlootlc @estloq lobotototles ltJ 64 lSupp2d 83
(nu n? 1999)
L no collecLlve bargalnlng exempLlon Lhere ls no collecLlve bargalnlng exempLlon under Lhe
lLSA A unlon can noL bargaln away Lhe lLSA rlghLs of Lhe employee otteotloe v
Atkoososbest ltelqbt 5ystems 430 uS 728743 (1981)

An employee ls elLher exempL or non exempL an employee may noL be parLlally exempL
Aoet v kobblos 63 l3d 702 (8
Lh
Clr 1993) 1he burden of proof Lo show exempLed sLaLus
lles wlLh Lhe respondenL

I 8urden to rove overt|me

A lalnLlffs are noL requlred Lo produce acLual records or logs buL may esLabllsh Lhe
amounL of overLlme worked Lhrough Lhelr own LesLlmony oeoo v Mottoet 829 l2d
1380 (6
Lh
Clr 1987)
8 1he facL LhaL Lhe plalnLlff ln unable Lo prove Lhe preclse exLenL of Lhe uncompensaLed
work does noL preclude recovery l v cole otetptlses loc 62 l3d 773779 (6
Lh
Clr
1993)
C Where plalnLlffs esLabllsh LhaL Lhey performed overLlme work for whlch Lhey
were noL compensaLed and Lhe amounL and exLenL of LhaL work as a maLLer of
[usL and reasonable lnference Lhe burden Lhen shlfLs Lo Lhe employer Lo come
forward wlLh evldence of Lhe preclse amounL of work performed or wlLh
evldence Lo negaLe Lhe reasonableness of Lhe lnference Lo be drawn from Lhe
plalnLlffs evldence and lf Lhe defendanL falls Lo produce such evldence Lhe
courL may Lhen award damages Lo Lhe plalnLlffs even lf Lhe amounL ls only
approxlmaLe Mt clemeos lottety 328 uS aL 687688 Metzlet v ll loc 127
l3d 939 96366 (10Lh Clr 1997) oeoo 829 l2d aL 1387 under Mtclemeos
lottety an employer cannoL complaln abouL Lhe employees calculaLlon meLhod
unless lL lnLroduces speclflc evldence Lo Lhe conLrary of Lhe hours acLually
worked or evldence LhaL undermlnes Lhe reasonableness of Lhe esLlmaLe
wolJboom 833 lSupp aL 1043 1he use of represenLaLlonal examples (raLher
Lhan every overLlme employee) ls permlsslble kelcb v 5ootbeto New oqlooJ
@elecommoolcotloos cotp 121 l3d 38 (2nd Clr 1997)

II Damages

A ln addlLlon Lo recoverlng Lhe amounL of wlLhheld overLlme an award of
llquldaLed damages ln an amounL equal Lo Lhe unpald back wages ls mandaLed
under 29 uSC 216(b)
8 29 uSC 216(b) allows for Lhe prevalllng parLy Lo be awarded aLLorney's fees
and cosLs buL llmlLs Lhls remedy Lo Lhe plalnLlff 1he acL orders LhaL Lhe courL
sboll lo oJJltloo to ooy joJqmeot owotJeJ to tbe plolotlff ollow o teosoooble
ottotoeys fee be polJ by tbe JefeoJoot" presumably because lLSA clalms are
one way clalms" ln LhaL an employer (usual defendanL) cannoL sue an employee
(usual plalnLlff) for Lhem
C An employer LhaL falls Lo adhere Lo Lhe AcLs record keeplng requlremenLs cannoL
laLer complaln LhaL lLs' employees evldence of damages ln lnexacL or lmpreclse
AoJetsoo v Mt clemeos lottety co 328 uS 680 (1946)
u Lvldence of recordkeeplng vlolaLlons can be an elemenL of wlllfulness lwell v
uolvetslty nospltols nome cote 5etv 276 l3d 832844 (6
Lh
Clr 2002) notolJ
levlosoo Assocloc v cboo 2002 uS App LLxlS 9796 (2d Clr May 222002)
L ln a leLLer daLed !anuary 102011 1he PosplLals Chlef nurslng Cfflcer (CnC)
aLLl 8enneL sLaLes"lf lo bet joJqmeot sbe Lhe L8 manager Jetetmloes tbe
stoff Joes oot bove leqltlmote teosoo fot oot tokloq tbelt bteok sbe coo Jeoy tbe
opptovol" Lo be compensaLed for Lhe auLomaLlc LhlrLy mlnuLe deducLlon 1he
lLSA does glve Lhe employer Lhe ablllLy Lo make such deLermlnaLlons" 1he
hours worked where elLher pald or noL pald 1hls dlrecLlve from Lhe CnC shows
Lhe non paymenLs where wlll full as Lhey were based on Lhe managers
deLermlnaLlons" wlLh Lhe consenL of Lhe CnC lL also demonsLraLes knowledge
of Lhe non paymenLs by upper level admlnlsLraLlon

III "Suffered" or "erm|tted" work

A An employer who ls armed wlLh Lhe knowledge LhaL an employee ls or was
worklng overLlme cannoL sLand ldly by and allow Lhe employee Lo perform
overLlme work wlLhouL proper compensaLlon even lf Lhe employee does noL
make a clalm for overLlme etzok v clty of 5ootb eoJ 996 lSupp 840 (nu ln
1998) lLSA overLlme may noL be denled solely on Lhe grounds LhaL Lhe
employee could have compleLed hls or her Lasks durlng scheduled hours Lhereby
avoldlng Lhe need for overLlme alLogeLher nolzopfel v @owo of Newbotqb n?
143 l3d 316 (2
nd
Clr 1998)

8 Lmployer rules agalnsL worklng overLlme are noL defenses under 29 Cl8
78313 1here ls an offltmotlve duLy of Lhe managemenL Lo exerclse lLs conLrol
and see LhaL work ls noL performed lf Lhere ls a fallure Lo do so lL resulLs ln work
permlLLed and work ls Lhen compensable



II C|a|ms er|od

A A separaLe lLSA vlolaLlon accrues for each pay perlod LhaL an employee was noL
properly pald neocby v clty of Abscoo 148 lSupp2d 433 (un! 2001)
8 1he employer bears Lhe burden Lo prove LhaL a vlolaLlon was noL wlllfull ln order Lo
avold Lhe Lhree year recovery perlod ottett v kc ltopettles loc 211 l3d 1078
(8
Lh
Clr 2000)

I Labor Management k|ghts Act |nf|uence (LkMA )

A 1he LM8A does noL preempL Lhe sLaLe clalm 1he preempLlon comes lnLo play only lf Lhe
courL musL lnLerpreL Lhe tetms of a collecLlve bargalnlng agreemenL Slmply referenclng
such agreemenL alone does consLlLuLe a preempLlon 8aker v klngsley 387 l3d 649
(7Lh Clr 2004)
8 LM8A SecLlon 301 does noL apply 1he clalmanL ls noL clalmlng a conLracL vlolaLlon 8ase
pay and overLlme are meotlooeJ ln Lhe conLracL buL exlsL lndependenLly of lL as a
maLLer of law lloqle v Notqe lv of Moqlc cbef 486 uS 399 (1988)
C use of collecLlve bargalnlng agreemenL grlevance procedures ls noL a prerequlslLe Lo
flllng sulL due Lo Lhe parallel naLure of Lhe hosplLals lnLernal lalr 1reaLmenL rocess"
(l1) LhaL was exhausLed by Lhe clalmanL 1he bargalnlng agreemenL expressly sLaLes
LhaL ls does noL preempL Lhe employees use of Lhe l1 alLernaLlve ln ArLlcle 9(h)'

















1 1he parLles agree thot nothinq in this 4qreement sho// offect the enforceobi/ity of ony keqistered Nurses existinq
oqreement to be bound by the 1enet loir 1reotment Process (l1") inc/udinq by either fino/ ond bindinq
orbitrotion under the 4mericon 4rbitrotion 4ssociotion mp/oyment uispute keso/ution ku/es wlLh respecL Lo any
dlspuLe noL oLherwlse arblLrable under Lhe CollecLlve 8argalnlng AgreemenL 1he parLles furLher agree LhaL Lhe
laclllLy may requesL LhaL any currenLly employed or newlyhlred 8eglsLered nurse volunLarlly execuLe and
acknowledgemenL from llkewlse agreelng Lo be bound by Lhe l1 wlLh respecL Lo any dlspuLes noL oLherwlse
arblLrable under Lhls collecLlve bargalnlng agreemenL no reLallaLlon or adverse acLlon may be Laken agalnsL anyone
who exerclses Lhe opLlon noL Lo slgn Lhe l1 lurLher any 8eglsLered nurse who lnlLlally decllnes Lo be bound by Lhe
l1 may laLer elecL Lhls opLlon wlLh respecL Lo any parLlcular clalm normally sub[ecL Lo Lhe l1 and noL oLherwlse
arblLrable under Lhls collecLlve bargalnlng agreemenL and wlll be lnformed of Lhls rlghL by Lhe laclllLy noLhlng
hereln shall preclude any 8eglsLered nurse or Lhe laclllLy from seeklng Lo challenge or enforce Lhe l1 lncludlng Lhe
obllgaLlon Lo arblLraLe"