Businesses of all types and sizes throughout the United States, Mexico and beyond bring their disputes to Gardere's litigation team and receive practical, responsive, boutique-style attention in return. Our clients have access to the firepower and value of a well-known and highly-regarded Firm's capabilities and interdisciplinary strengths.
Gardere has a national and international energy practice formed around our Energy Industry Team, which is a multidisciplinary group of approximately 60 attorneys with diverse backgrounds, experience and skills specific to the energy industry. Our team includes attorneys who have served as in-house counsel for major energy companies, providing a depth of insight into our clients' needs, issues and concerns. We understand and regularly practice in virtually every sector of the energy, and we represent a wide variety of industry participants from multinational corporations to individuals.
From our offices in the United States and Mexico, our International Practice helps clients operate in today’s global economy. We have more than 30 professionals operating as a boutique within an Am Law 200 law firm and are able to provide focused service with the resources of a large firm. We understand that clients who are engaged in the global marketplace need lawyers who can operate seamlessly across multiple jurisdictions. Our international experts are multi-lingual, are culturally fluent and intimately familiar with various legal systems across the world, especially those in Latin America. Whether you need help with commercial transactions, regulatory matters, customs and import regulations, immigration matters, M&A and joint ventures, international disputes, or international tax planning, Gardere’s international team is here to assist you.
We represent domestic and foreign private funds in all aspects of fund formation, fund operations, platform and add-on acquisitions, and portfolio company operations. Our team has a reputation for being the go-to-lawyers for private equity funds, hedge funds, venture capital funds and family offices. We are known for our vast deal experience, the efficient way we staff and manage our work, and the way we maintain our relationships. We get deals done with sophisticated, strategic, and practical advice tailored to the needs of our clients.
*Not admitted to practice law.
Wage and hour litigation has been on a meteoric rise and is unlikely to slow in 2014. Nationally, employers paid over $245 million in 2013 to resolve wage and hour cases. In Texas, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) cases continue to be among the most commonly filed in federal courts. Many of these cases allege plaintiffs are due overtime after being misclassified as exempt employees.
Two recent rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit define an employer’s ability to resolve these cases at a discount by applying the fluctuating work week (FWW) method of calculating damages. These savings can be significant — for example, with an employee who earns $45,000 annually and averages 45 hours per week, an employer can save $15,000 over the three year look-back permitted by the FLSA by applying this method — and multiply when considered in the common context of collective actions.
The FWW method is authorized by the FLSA. Where the employer and employee agree and the employee works a varying number of hours per week, the employee receives reduced overtime pay. The employee is paid a weekly salary, which compensates the employee for all “regular” hours worked. For each hour of overtime, the employee receives the premium amount of “half-time” instead of the traditional time and a half. This method can save employers two-thirds of the potential damages in a misclassification suit. Although a circuit split exists, the Fifth Circuit routinely approves retroactive application of this method in misclassification cases.
The Fifth Circuit issued two recent opinions clarifying an employer’s ability to discount damages by retroactively applying the FWW method. This approach was approved in Ransome v. M. Patel Enterprises Inc., where the court ruled that the FWW calculation is properly applied where the employee understands his hours would vary each week and his salary was intended to compensate him for all hours worked. The court found the parties’ course of conduct and the employee’s initial understanding that a weekly salary would cover the full work week of varying hours was sufficient to trigger application of the FWW method. Importantly, the employer’s documentary evidence showed that the employees understood their weekly hours would vary.
Only three months later, the Fifth Circuit rejected use of the FWW calculation in Black v. SettlePou PC. In this case, the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s application of the FWW method of calculating damages. The distinguishing factor in SettlePou is that the plaintiff did not agree that her weekly wage would compensate her for all hours worked. Rather, she complained that she was not paid properly on several occasions. In addition, the evidence showed that she understood her salary would compensate her for her regular work week with no indication the hours would vary. Black complained in writing and verbally that she was misclassified and was due overtime pay. After a jury found she had been misclassified, the district court applied the FWW method in calculating damages. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling on damages. Citing Ransome, the court concluded that two factors must be considered: the parties’ initial understanding of the arrangement and their course of conduct. SettlePou failed to satisfy both prongs. First, Black understood her salary was intended to compensate her for a regular work week of 37.5 hours, not varying hours. Second, Black made complaints to her employer that she was not paid properly. The Fifth Circuit found both of these elements preclude a calculation of damages using the FWW method.
These cases are instructive for employers wishing to ensure that they can apply the FWW method of calculating damages in the event of an employee misclassification. First, discuss — and document — with the employee that he likely will be required to work a varying number of hours each week; he is not guaranteed a workweek limited to 40 hours. Second, respond to employee complaints promptly; evaluating the merit of the exemption at the first complaint may preserve the ability to apply this discounted damages calculation looking back. Litigation often turns not on the facts as we know them to be but on the facts we can demonstrate. Documenting the varying nature of the work week, whether in an application, offer letter or other writing, can be the determinative factor.
Jessica Glatzer Mason is a partner with Gardere Wynne Sewell in Houston. Her practice includes all areas of employment law, including FLSA, unfair competition and discrimination matters. Her email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Reprinted with permission from the April 7, 2014, edition of Texas Lawyer. ©2014 ALM Media Properties LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.
The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.
You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander. A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.
Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used. For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.
AND and OR may be used in a search. Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance."
The + and - sign operators may be used. The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".
To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks. For example, "Project Finance".
Searches are not case sensitive.