Chao v. Self Pride, Inc.

Chao v. Self Pride, Inc.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Secretary of the United States Department of Labor brought the instant action against Defendants Self Pride, Inc. and Barbara A. Robinson (collectively "Defendants") alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"),  [*2]  as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. ¹ On June 14, 2005, the Court granted, in part, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the question of Defendants' liability for violations of the FLSA related to pay practices concerning Community Living Assistants ("CLAs"). More specifically, this Court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to Defendants' violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) ("overtime provision") of the FLSA in failing to compensate employees for overtime wages and 29 U.S.C. § 211(c) ("record-keeping provision") in failing to make, keep and preserve adequate and accurate records regarding employee wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. In addition, the Court determined that the affected Self Pride employees were entitled to liquidated damages as a matter of law and that Barbara Robinson can be held personally liable for Self Pride Inc.'s FLSA violations.

 [*3]  The Defendants' liability having been determined on summary judgment, certain issues remained for trial. The first issue was whether Defendants willfully violated the FLSA, such as to trigger an exception to the two year statute of limitations. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) (providing for a three year statute of limitations period when a FLSA violation is willful). The second issue was an appropriate damages figure for Defendants' liability as determined by the Court on summary judgment. See 29 U.S.C. § 217. In addition, Plaintiff also sought injunctive relief. See id. Both parties presented evidence and argument on these issues during the non-jury trial that was conducted on October 24, 25, 26, 27 and November 1 and 2, 2005. On November 15, 2005, the parties submitted post-trial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On November 22, 2005, Plaintiff submitted updated damages figures, and supporting documentation, through October 16, 2005. ²

 [*4]  The Court, having considered the evidence presented at trial and having reviewed the parties' post-trial submissions, finds that Defendants did not act willfully and, therefore, a two year statute of limitations period applies. The Court enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $ 527,903.63. The Court also grants Plaintiffs request for permanent injunctive relief.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.