Law Quiz #3 February 26

Christensen v. Harris County

*Basically, when someone works more than 40 hours, you have to take time off. Harris County adopted a policy requiring its employees to schedule time off in order to reduce the amount of accrued compensatory time. Employees of the Harris County Sheriff's Department sued, claiming that the FLSA prohibits such a policy. The Court of Appeals found that the FLSA contains no provision that would prohibit the policy.

Enforcement and Remedies Under the FLSA

*KNOW!!*** The FLSA is enforced by the Department of Labor (DOL). The Wage and Hour Division of the DOL performs inspections, investigations and issues rules and regulations. The Secretary of Labor is authorized to file suit on behalf of employees seeking to collect wages and overtime and may also recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of wages owed. The Secretary may also seek injunctions against violations of the act. Criminal proceedings for willful violations may be instituted by the Department of Justice. Employees may file suit to recover back wages and overtime plus liquidated damages in an equal amount and may also seek reinstatement and may recover legal fees. Employees generally may not release employers for less than the full amount owing, nor may employees waive their rights to compensation under the act.

Defenses Under the ADA

-Direct Threat to Safety or Health of Others -Job-Related Criteria -Food Handler Defense -Religious Entities

Disability

A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual. The person has to be regarded or have a record of the disability.

ADEA Claims

A plaintiff alleging a violation of the ADEA must: establish a prima facie case that the employer has discriminated against the employee because of age and demonstrate that age was "the determining factor" in the employer's action.

Arbitration of ADEA Claims

Agreements to arbitrate ADEA claims will be enforced when they were voluntarily and knowingly agreed to by the employees. Such arbitration agreements do not prevent the EEOC from bringing a suit on behalf of the individual employees subject to the arbitration agreements. The employees covered by a collective agreement that contained an arbitration clause that specifically included age discrimination claims are required to arbitrate their ADEA claims rather than litigate them.

Undue Hardship

An accommodation that requires significant difficulty or expense for the employer.

Employer Defenses on ADA

An employer is not required to hire a person with a disability who is not capable of performing the duties of the job. Regulations require the employer to make "reasonable accommodation" to the disabilities of individuals. When determining the essential functions of a job, the court or the EEOC, which administers and enforces the ADA, considers the employer's judgment as to what is essential.

Class Actions

An individual plaintiff may sue on behalf of a whole class of individuals allegedly suffering the same harm. Affirmative relief may be available to minority group members who were not personally victimized by the employer's prior discrimination.

Qualified Individual with a Disability:

An individual with a disability who is able to perform, with reasonable accommodation, the requirements of the job in question, despite the disability.

Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association

Carolyn Humphrey worked for Memorial Hospitals Association and was fired on October 10, 1995 because of her history of tardiness and absenteeism. Humphrey filed suit against MHA under the ADA. The district court granted MHA's motion for summary judgment, and Humphrey appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The district court's grant of summary judgment to MHA on Humphrey's ADA and FEHA claims was reversed and the case was remanded for proceedings.

Chalfant v. Titan Distribution, Inc.

Chalfant sued Titan for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act after he was told that he did not qualify in the physical test, which was contrary to the medical report given by the doctor who actually conducted the physical test. The district court then awarded $18,750 in front pay. Titan appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court verdict and the award of punitive damages to Chalfant.

Jacobs v. N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts

Christina Jacobs worked as a deputy clerk at a courthouse in New Hanover County, North Carolina. Although she allegedly suffered from social anxiety disorder, her employer assigned her to provide customer service at the courthouse front counter. Believing that her mental illness hindered her ability to perform this inherently social task, Jacobs requested an accommodation to be assigned to a role with less direct interpersonal interaction. Her employer waited three weeks without acting on her request and then terminated her. The Fourth Circuit panel held that the trial judge erred by concluding that Jacobs was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA.

ADA Provisions

Covered employers cannot discriminate in any aspect of employment because of disability against an otherwise qualified individual with a disability. Retaliation against any individual because the individual has opposed any act or practice unlawful under the ADA is prohibited. Retaliation against any individual because the individual has filed a charge or participated in any manner in a proceeding under the ADA is prohibited. Coercion or intimidation of, threats against, or interference with an individual's exercise of or enjoyment of any rights granted under the act is prohibited.

Executives

Customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees Has the authority to hire or fire other employees

FLSA Coverage

Employees who are engaged in interstate commerce, including both import and export Employees who are engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce Employees employed in an "enterprise engaged in" interstate commerce Employers and employees not covered by FLSA are generally subject to state laws, similar to the FLSA, which regulate minimum wages and maximum hours of work. In 1974, FLSA coverage was extended to most federal employees, to state and local government employees, and to private household domestic workers.

Exempt Employees

Employees whose hours of work and compensation are not stipulated by the FLSA

Waivers

Employers may require employees receiving special benefits upon early retirement to execute a waiver of claims under the ADEA if: -The waiver is knowing and voluntary. -The employees receive additional compensation for the waiver, over and above that to which they are already entitled. Requirements: -Waivers must be in writing and must specifically refer to ADEA rights. -Employees must be advised to consult an attorney about the waiver. -Employees must be given at least twenty-one days to consider the matter before deciding whether to execute the waiver. -Employees must be allowed to revoke the waivers up to seven days after signing. -If the waivers are part of a termination incentive program offered to a group or class of employees, the employer must give the employees forty-five days to consider the waiver. If the early retirement and waiver are offered to a class of employees, the employer must provide employees: -A list of the class eligible for early retirement. -The factors to determine eligibility for early retirement. -The time limits for deciding upon early retirement. -Any possible adverse action if the employee declines to accept early retirement and the date of such possible action. For waivers involving a claim that is already before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or a court, employees must be given "reasonable time" to consider the waiver.

After-Acquired Evidence:

Evidence discovered by an employer after having taken allegedly discriminatory action against an employee that the employer attempts to use to justify the action already taken.

After-Acquired Evidence

Evidence, discovered after an employer has taken an adverse employment action, that the employer uses to justify the action taken.

Overtime & Minimum Wage Exemptions

Executives, Administrators, Professionals, and Outside Salespeople

Section 7: Rights of Employees

Given to all private employees covered by the NLRA: -Employees need not be organized union members to enjoy such rights -The rights are given to the individual employee, they may not be waived by a union purporting to act on behalf of the employees Activity is protected under Section 7 if: -It is concerted activity -It is for collective bargaining or mutual aid and protection purposes -It is not illegal, destructive, or unreasonable -The protection of Section 7 also extends to activities not directly associated with formal unionization Activity is not protected under Section 7 if: -Employees are acting individually -Conduct is not related to collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection purposes

Public Employees Under Title VII

INTERNAL RESOLUTIONS! If the employee is not satisfied with the counselor's resolution of the complaint, the employee can file a formal complaint with the agency's designated EEO official. Employees of Congress and the White House are subject to Title VII through the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.

Purple Communications, Inc., and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO

IS NOW OVERRULED!! Purple Communications, Inc. [the employer] provides sign-language interpretation services. The company maintains an employee handbook that contains its electronic communications policy prohibiting employees from using the email system to "Engag[e] in activities on behalf of organizations or persons with no professional or business affiliation with the Company." The Communications Workers of America Union filed petitions to represent the interpreters, claiming they should be allowed to use their employer's email and other electronic communications systems for the purpose of communicating with other employees about union or other Section 7 matters. A majority of the NLRB overruled the Board's decision in Register Guard to the extent it holds that employees can have no statutory right to use their employer's email systems for Section 7 purposes. The majority held that, consistent with the purposes and policies of the Act and the obligation to accommodate the competing rights of employers and employees, employee use of email for statutorily protected communications on nonworking time must presumptively be permitted by employers who have chosen to give employees access to their email systems.

Compensatory and Punitive Damages

If the plaintiff can demonstrate that a private sector defendant has engaged in a discriminatory practice with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an individual, the plaintiff can recover compensatory and punitive damages.

E.E.O.C. v. Exxon Mobile Corporation

In 1959, the FAA adopted a rule prohibiting pilots from flying in any operations in Part 121 of the FAA's regulations if the pilot was over the age of 60 ("Age 60 Rule"). Part 121 applied to "large commercial passenger aircraft, smaller propeller aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats, and common carriage operations of all-cargo aircraft with a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds. "The FAA supported this Age 60 Rule. Defendant Exxon adopted a similar retirement-at-60 rule for its corporate pilots. The EEOC challenged this rule in court. The EEOC failed to address the fact that Part 121 covered a wide range of operations and to distinguish Exxon's operations. Instead, the EEOC's evidence compared only commercial piloting to Exxon piloting or corporate piloting generally. When compared to commercial pilots, the EEOC was correct that corporate pilots might fly fewer hours, operate on a varying schedule, and only fly in certain weather conditions. However, these distinctions were "distinctions without difference." Exxon's operations functioned in much the same manner as commercial, commuter, or cargo operations, all types of piloting covered by Part 121. Thus, the EEOC had not shown a genuine dispute of material fact that the occupations lack congruence. Summary judgment for Exxon was affirmed.

Private Settlement and Release Agreements

In 2014, the EEOC took the position that private settlement-and-release agreements between employers and current or former employees are unenforceable to the extent that they potentially interfere with the employee's future access to the agency and/or future ability to cooperate in agency investigations.

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008

Individuals can establish that they are "regarded as having such an impairment" if they show that t hey have been subjected to discriminatory treatment because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment, whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity. When determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, the court is not to consider the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, assistive devices or aids, other than eyeglasses or contact lenses.

Disparate Impact Claims

Involve a claim in which neutral job requirements have a discriminatory effect.Another method of establishing a disparate impact may be by making a statistical comparison of the minority representation in the employers' work force and the minority representation in the population as a whole.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)

Its employment-related provisions took effect in November 2009. The legislation prohibits discrimination based on genetic information by employers with 15 or more employees, employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor-management committees.

NLRB v. City Disposal Systems

James Brown, a truck driver, was discharged when he refused to drive a truck that he honestly and reasonably believed to be unsafe because of faulty brakes. Brown filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, challenging his discharge. The NLRB held that Brown's refusal was concerted activity within Section 7, and that his discharge was, therefore, an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1). Finding that Brown's refusal to drive truck was an action taken solely on his own behalf, the Court of Appeals concluded that the refusal was not a concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7. The Court of Appeals disagreed and declined enforcement of the Board's order. The Supreme Court accepted the Board's conclusion that James Brown was engaged in concerted activity when he refused to drive truck. Therefore, it reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Remedies Under the ADEA

Successful private plaintiffs can recover.... -Any back wages owing and legal fees -An equal amount as liquidated damages if the employer acted "willfully" -Injunctive relief -Legal fees and costs Remedies in suits by the EEOC may include.... -Injunctions -Back pay -Liquidated damages are not available in such suits

Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB

Local 919 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union was attempting to organize the employees at a Lechmere retail store. The union sent non-employee organizers into Lechmere's parking lot to place handbills on the windshields of cars parked. The store's manager informed the union organizers that Lechmere prohibits solicitation or handbill distribution of any kind on its property. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NRLB, alleging that Lechmere violated the Section 8(a)(1) of NLRA by barring the non-employee organizers from its property. An ALJ recommended that Lechmere be ordered to cease and desist from barring the union organizers from the parking lot. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied Lechmere's petition for review and enforced the Board's order. Lechmere then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals, and denied enforcement of the NLRB order.

HARMON V. EARTHGRAINS BAKING COMPANIES, INC.

Michael Harmon, a manager at Eathgrains, was fired after failing to follow Earthgrains' accident reporting protocol. Earthgrains did not fill the vacancy created by Harmon's termination; rather, it assigned Mark Carter, an existing district manager in Glasgow, Kentucky, who was 10 years younger than Harmon (aged 58 at the time), to manage the area previously supervised by Harmon. Carter not only absorbed permanently all of Harmon's job responsibilities, but he also continued to serve as district manager in Glasgow, thereby increasing his workload. The court of appeals had no hesitancy to rule for the defendant on these facts. Because Harmon was not replaced by Carter, the appellate panel held that he failed to present a prima facie case of age discrimination. Nor did the judges buy the plaintiff's contention that the company's so-called "reorganization" was a pretext to disguise its discriminatory termination of the plaintiff in favor of his younger counterpart, Carter.

Purpose of the FLSA

Minimum wages Overtime pay provisions Child labor Equal pay for equal work

Front Pay

Monetary damages awarded to a plaintiff instead of reinstatement or hiring

Outside salespeople

Obtain orders or contracts for services or for the use of facilities for which a consideration will be paid by the client or customer Customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer's place of business

Overtime Pay

One-and-a-half times an employees' regular pay rate

Administrators

Perform office or non-manual work directly related to management or general business operations Exercise discretion and independent judgment regarding significant matters

Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc.

Petitioner Dolores Oubre worked as a scheduler at a power plant in Killona, Louisiana, run by her employer, respondent Entergy Operation. In 1994, she received a poor performance rating, and was given an option either to improve or accept a voluntary settlement of services. After 14 days she decided to accept. She later filed suit against Entergy in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging constructive discharge on the basis of her age in violation of the ADEA and state law. The release cannot bar the ADEA claims because the employee's mere retention of monies amount to a ratification equivalent to a valid release of her ADEA claims, since the retention did not comply with the OWBPA any more than the original release did.

National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA)

Provides for the development of "codes of fair competition" for various industries.

The Davis-Bacon Act

Provides that contractors working on government construction projects must pay the prevailing wage rates in the geographic area, as determined by the Secretary of Labor.

Employer Liability for Punitive Damages Under Title VII

Punitive damages may be recovered if there is an intentional discrimination with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an individual.

Professionals

Require advanced knowledge of in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by specialized intellectual instruction Require invention, imagination, originality, or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor

Executive Exemption

Section 631(c) of the ADEA allows the mandatory retirement of executive employees who are over the age of sixty-five. To qualify under this exemption the employee must have been in a bona fide executive or high policy-making position for at least two years. Upon retirement, must be entitled to nonforfeitable retirement benefits of at least $44,000 annually An employee who is within the executive exemption can be required to retire upon reaching age sixty-five.

The Walsh-Healy Act

Sets minimum standards for wages for contractors providing at least $10,000 worth of goods to the federal government.

Workweek

Seven consecutive days

Individuals Not Protected by the ADA

The 2009 amendments to the ADA specifically state that the "being regarded as having an impairment" aspect of the definition of disability shall not apply to impairments that are transitory (defined as an impairment with actual or expected duration of six months or less) and minor. Employees who use illegal drugs are not protected by the ADA, nor are alcoholics who use alcohol at the workplace or who are under the influence of alcohol at the workplace. The act's protection does not apply to an individual who is a transvestite, nor are homosexuality, bisexuality, or sexual behavior disorders (such as exhibitionism or trans-sexualism) considered disabilities.

ADA Coverage

The ADA applies to both private and public sector employers with fifteen or more employees. Does not apply to most Federal government employers, American Indian tribes, or Bona fide private membership clubs.

Enforcement of the ADA

The ADA is enforced by the EEOC The act specifically provides that the procedures and remedies under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall be those used or available under the ADA

Medical Exams and Tests

The ADA limits the ability of an employer to test for or inquire into the disabilities of job applicants and employees: -Employers are prohibited from asking about the existence, nature, or severity of a disability -An employer may ask about the individual's ability to perform the functions and requirements of the job Employers are likewise not permitted to require preemployment medical examinations of applicants: -Once an offer of a job has been extended to an applicant, employers can require a medical exam, provided that such an exam is required of all entering employees. -Current employees are similarly protected from inquiries or exams, unless those requirements can be shown to be "job-related and consistent with business necessity."

Early Retirement and Work Force Reductions

The ADEA does not prohibit voluntary retirement as long as it is truly voluntary. The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990, which amended the ADEA, contained several provision concerning work force reductions. Employers seeking to reduce their work force may offer employees early retirement incentives such as. Subsidized benefits for early retirees. Paying higher benefits until retirees are eligible for social security. Severance pay.

ADEA Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications

The ADEA does recognize that age may be a BFOQ for some jobs. A BFOQ must be reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the employer's business In the case of Hodgson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., the court held that Greyhound could refuse to hire applicants for bus driver positions if the candidates were over thirty-five years old because of passenger safety considerations.

Procedures Under the ADEA

The ADEA is enforced and administered by the EEOC. The ADEA allows suits by private individuals as well as by the EEOC. An individual alleging a violation of the ADEA must file a written complaint with the EEOC and with the state or local equal employment opportunity (EEO) agency if one exists. Unlike Title VII, however, the individual may file simultaneously with both the EEOC and the state or local agency. After filing with the EEOC and the state or local EEO agency, the individual must wait 60 days before filing suit in federal court. If the EEOC files suit under the ADEA, the EEOC suit supersedes any ADEA suit filed by the individual or any state agency. As with Title VII, the ADEA allows for a jury trial.

Government Suits

The ADEA provides for suits by the EEOC against nonfederal employers. The EEOC must attempt to settle the complaint voluntarily before filing suit. -There is no specific time limitation for this required conciliation effort. Once conciliation has been attempted, the EEOC may file suit. -The courts are split on the question of when the EEOC suit must be filed -Some courts have held that there is no specific statute of limitations on ADEA suits filed by the EEOC

The Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination in employment because of disability. Title I of the act, which applies to employment, prohibits discrimination against individuals who are otherwise qualified for employment. In 2009, the act was amended by the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act, which broadened the definition of covered disabilities to include a wide range of life activities that previously had been declared outside the ADA by a series of Supreme Court decisions, which the ADAAA in effect overruled.

Employer Social Media Policies and Limitations on Employees' Communications

The Board has generally taken a negative view of employer rules prohibiting employees from discussing work-related matters with fellow workers, holding that they are overly restrictive of protected activity. Northeastern Land Services, Inc. v. NLRB: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the NLRB decision that an employer rule prohibiting employees from discussing terms of employment, including compensation, under penalty of dismissal was a violation of Section 8(a)(1). Costco Wholesale Corp.: The Board ruled that an employer's policy was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) because the broad prohibition clearly encompassed concerted communications protesting working conditions or the employer's treatment of its employees.

Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi

The City of Jackson, Mississippi adopted a pay plan in May 1999 that was intended to bring the starting salaries of police officers up to the average of other police departments in the region. A group of older officers filed suit against the city, alleging that the differential raise policy violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The officers then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the disparate-impact theory of recovery is available under the ADEA.

Hoasanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought this action against the member congregation of the Lutheran Church, alleging that the "called" teacher at its school had been fired in retaliation for threatening to file an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit. The teacher intervened, claiming unlawful retaliation under both the ADA and state law. Chief Justice Roberts wrote his opinion on behalf of a unanimous Court. In it, he held that (1) the First Amendment bars suits by ministers against their churches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws; (2) the called teacher in effect was a minister for purposes of this rule, notwithstanding that she performed many duties equivalent to what lay teachers in the church's school also performed; and (3) this ministerial exception extends not only to the ADA but to all employment discrimination statutes.

Back Pay

The court may award back pay to a successful plaintiff

Suits by Federal Employees

The federal government is not included in the ADEA's definition of employer. Personnel actions in most federal government positions shall be made free from discrimination based on age. The ADEA protects federal workers who are at least 40 years of age. A federal employee agency must file a complaint with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged violation. The employee may file suit in federal court after thirty days from filing with the EEOC. The ADEA provides only for private suits in cases involving complaints by federal employees. No provision is made for suits by the EEOC.

ADEA Defenses

The following are not violations: Actions pursuant to a bona fide seniority system, retirement, pension or benefit system, For good cause, For a "reasonable factor other than age." The Act also: Recognizes that age may be a BFOQ, Permits the mandatory retirement of certain executive employees at age sixty-five. The ADEA was amended in 1990 to provide an additional defense for employers: Where the employer employs American workers in a foreign country and compliance with the ADEA would cause the employer to violate foreign law, the employer is excused from complying with the ADEA.

Terry v. Sapphire Gentlemen's Club

The performers also agree to abide by certain "house rules," including a minimum standard of coverage by their costumes and a minimum heel height; payment of a "house fee," which ranges in amount, any night they work; and performing two dances per shift on the club stage unless they pay an "off-stage" fee. Sapphire does not pay wages to the performers, whose income is entirely dependent upon tips and dancing fees paid by Sapphire patrons. The performers filed suit against the Sapphire challenging their work arrangements, claiming that they were "employees" within the meaning of state minimum wage laws and were thus guaranteed a minimum wage. The court then held that, based on the review of the totality of the circumstances of the working relationship's economic reality, Sapphire qualified as an employer under the state legislation, and the performers therefore qualified as employees under the law. In so holding, the court noted that its decision was in accord with the great weight of authority, which has almost "without exception ... found an employment relationship and required ... nightclub[s] to pay [their] dancers a minimum wage."

Minimum Wage

The wage limit, set by the government, under which an employer is not allowed to pay an employee

Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium and School, Inc.

This case raises another hot issue under the FLSA. The proliferation of unpaid interns in the wake of the 2008-09 Great Recession has led the DOL to promulgate rules aimed at determining when such college students are in fact employees of the companies that accept them for such on-the-job experiences. The NLRB is wrestling with a similar issue: are graduate assistants, who fill the classrooms and labs of our nation's large universities, primarily students or principally employees? This case offers a variation on these themes. Here the students in a boarding school studies four hours a day and worked four hours each day ostensibly acquiring practical skills. The district court applied the proper test when it asked which party to the relationship received the primary benefit of the students' activities. The appellate court found the district court's findings of fact amply supported by the evidence adduced at trial, and agree with its application of the primary benefit test to conclude that the students at Laurelbrook are not employees for purposes of the FLSA. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Salazar v. Butterball, LLC

This is a recent example of a classic FLSA issue: workers spend time preparing for and/or winding up their shifts. Here the plaintiffs banded together and prosecuted their claim that the time they spent each work day putting on and taking off their work clothes ought to be paid by their employer. The term "hanging clothes" in the FLSA provision that excludes this activity from compensation is ambiguous. Protective clothing and gear is "clothes" under this proviso, so far as this court was concerned. The plant was not a food and beverage employer under the analogous Colorado law. Consequently, under neither the FLSA nor the Colorado baby-FLSA were the plaintiffs entitled to pay for the donning and doffing periods.

Private Settlement and Release

This is when something is settled outside of court! In-office compromise. The employee gives up their right to sue the employer on the matter.

Mumby v. Pure Energy Services

This was a collective action by a group of employees for wages due under the FLSA. The company concocted its own definition of the pay rate under which it paid its roustabouts. The court found that Pure Energy failed to compensate Plaintiffs for weekly overtime despite being put on notice. It applied its compensation policy in reckless disregard of FLSA requirements, and is therefore subject to the three-year statute of limitations for damages. The same facts that support the district court's conclusion that Pure Energy's failure to fully compensate Plaintiffs' weekly overtime was willful also support the district court's conclusion that Pure Energy's belief that it was complying with the FLSA was unreasonable. Moreover, even if the district court had found Pure Energy acted reasonably, it retained discretion to award liquidated damages.

Remedial Seniority

Victims of discrimination must be placed in the position they would have been in had no illegal discrimination occurred.

Limitations on Remedies for Mixed-Motive Discrimination

Where the employer has met the "same decision" test, the court will only issue a declaration or injunction and award legal fees.