EDWARD MONROE, FABIAN MOORE, AND TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES v. FTS USA, LLC AND UNITEK USA, LLC - Articles

All Content

EDWARD MONROE, FABIAN MOORE, AND TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES v. FTS USA, LLC AND UNITEK USA, LLC

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Nov 8, 2021

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Colin D. Dougherty, Daniel W. Yager, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Adam W. Hansen, APOLLO LAW LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Rachhana T. Srey, NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; BOGGS and STRANCH, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case has been litigated for over thirteen years. We have twice affirmed the district court’s certification of a collective action and the determination by the jury and court that FTS and UniTek are liable under the FLSA. We reversed only as to two errors in calculating damages for Plaintiffs’ piece- rate compensation and remanded for the sole purpose of recalculating damages without those errors. On remand, FTS and UniTek sought to raise a host of new attacks on the district court’s judgment that were unrelated to our limited instruction to recalculate the hourly rate and correct the multiplier used to calculate damages. Recognizing that our remand was limited, the district court barred FTS and UniTek from raising most of those arguments. The court then recalculated damages and entered judgment for all but one opt-in Plaintiff, Valon Harlan, finding a lack of sufficient evidence to calculate damages. Following entry of judgment, the district court also substantially granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s petition for attorney’s fees.

On appeal, FTS and UniTek assert that the district court erred in foreclosing its arguments, contending that our remand was general in nature and thus allowed the district court to consider the merits of their list of new claims. FTS and UniTek also argue that the district court abused its discretion in substantially granting attorney’s fees to Plaintiffs. We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment in all respects except as to its denial of judgment to Plaintiff Harlan, which we REVERSE and REMAND to the district court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Harlan.

Attachments: