Holmes v. Stetson Courier Inc

E.D. Arkansas

Holmes v. Stetson Courier Inc

DecidedSeptember 29, 2023

Docket4:20-cv-00191

StatusUnknown

This text of Holmes v. Stetson Courier Inc (Holmes v. Stetson Courier Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holmes v. Stetson Courier Inc, (E.D. Ark. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Case 4:20-cv-00191-DPM Document 137 Filed 09/29/23 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

ROY HOLMES; TINA ALEXANDER; PATRICK NORRIS; and MELISSA GARNER, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated PLAINTIFFS

v. No. 4:20-cv-191-DPM

STETSON COURIER, INC., and JOHN STETSON DEFENDANTS

MICHAELE. HAMES and JAMES KENLEY, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated PLAINTIFFS

v. No. 3:21-cv-218-DPM

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER The Court appreciates the parties' post-trial briefs on damages. Based on the whole record, including the Court's evaluation of each witness's credibility, the Court awards the minimum wage and overtime damages specified in Appendix A and the retaliation damages specified in Appendix B. Here is the Court's reasoning on the main disputed issues about damages. Case 4:20-cv-00191-DPM Document 137 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 20

Minimum Wage and Overtime Damages. The parties agree on the method for calculating the couriers' minimum wage and overtime damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. But the Court has made some adjustments and deductions to the couriers' calculations. The changes are based on the applicable law, as well as a week-by-week analysis of the facts the Court finds based on the testimony and documents. First, the Court has used the Arkansas mileage reimbursement in calculating the couriers' effective gross pay. 29 C.F.R. § 778.217(c)(2)(i). The Court agrees with Stetson that, in the circumstances presented, the state rate best captures the couriers' expenses. It was clear that the couriers incurred vehicle expenses in their work. But it was also clear that the couriers' evidence of actual expenses was incomplete. The federal rate would create a windfall. Second, some of the couriers' damages estimates were too speculative, and in some instances simply inaccurate, to support an award rooted in a just and reasonable inference. Andersen v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687-88 (1946); Holaway v. Stratasys, Inc., 771 F.3d 1057, 1059-60 (8th Cir. 2014). These are the rows marked in red in Appendix A. The Court didn't award damages for the weeks where the couriers' damages charts did not reflect the information from the available route sheets. The Court didn't award damages for weeks

-2- Case 4:20-cv-00191-DPM Document 137 Filed 09/29/23 Page 3 of 20

where the couriers admitted at trial that their charted hourly or mileage estimations were inaccurate. (The couriers' lawyers should not have submitted these incorrect estimations in the post-trial damages charts.) And the Court didn't award damages for the weeks where the exact same number of hours were claimed even though the testimony established that the miles driven in those weeks varied widely. Mt. Clemens, supra; Holaway, supra. For those weeks in which the couriers' damages estimations were too speculative, or unsupported based on all the documentary and testimonial evidence, the Court awarded nominal damages to recognize that the law was violated. Compare Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S. Ct. 792, 798-801 (2021). Third, some adjustments must be made on the out-of-pocket expenses because of tax deductions. The Court credited Holmes, Norris, Garner, and Kenley's testimony that they incurred out-of- pocket expenses for drug tests, background checks, HIP AA training, uniforms, cell phone purchases, and cell phone monthly bills. There is no evidence in the record that they deducted these expenses on their income taxes. Those expenses were subtracted from their total pay in the Court's calculation of their effective gross pay. But Alexander took a tax deduction for her business expenses - shirts, HIP AA training, drug test, background check, and the additional line on her phone. Defendants' Ex. 17. And Hames took one for his mileage. Plaintiffs' Ex. 117 at 12. The Court therefore did not subtract those expenses from

-3- Case 4:20-cv-00191-DPM Document 137 Filed 09/29/23 Page 4 of 20

Alexander and Hames' s total pay when calculating their effective gross pay. Kenley and Hames asked that their weekly phone bill expenses be subtracted in calculating their total pay, too. Although Stetson points out that their phones were also used for personal matters, that truth doesn't undermine Kenley and Hames' s reasonable estimates of those expenses or their argument that they should be accounted for in their effective gross pay calculations. Mt. Clemens, 328 U.S. at 687-88. Personal use does not change the fact that the cell phones were essential for the couriers' work. The Court's calculations for each couriers' minimum wage and overtime damages are attached in Appendix A. The Court compared the couriers' estimates with the testimonial and documentary evidence in the record. The appendix is color-coded to show how the Court made adjustments and deductions. Green means there were no inconsistencies with the record, so the Court awarded damages for that week. Yellow means that there were no facial inconsistencies between the couriers' route sheets and testimony, though there were some differences in the hourly or mileage estimates compared with other weeks' estimates. Because Stetson didn't persuade the Court by a preponderance of the evidence that the couriers' estimates were unreasonable, the Court awarded damages for the yellow weeks in the estimated amounts. Mt. Clemens, 328 U.S. at 687-88. Red means that the Court awarded only nominal damages for that week because the

-4- Case 4:20-cv-00191-DPM Document 137 Filed 09/29/23 Page 5 of 20

couriers' estimates were, based on other evidence of record, either inaccurate or too speculative. The blue cell contains the total minimum wage and overtime damages awarded to each courier. FLSA Retaliation Damages. The Court held from the bench that liquidated damages weren't appropriate in this case. Braswell v. City of El Dorado, 187 F.3d 954, 958-59 (8th Cir. 1999). The Court has reconsidered that ruling as the couriers requested, but remains of the same mind: Given all the facts, the statute's anti-retaliation purpose is achieved without doubling. The parties disagree on the method for calculating retaliation damages for Norris, Alexander, Garner, and Holmes-the employees who were fired by Stetson in April 2020 after they filed this case. The Court concludes that the best measure of each courier's retaliation damages is their regular rate based on effective gross pay. 29 C.F.R. § 778.217. The Court also limited the potential recovery period for these

damages to one year after the couriers' firing, as suggested by Stetson, rather than the three years sought by the couriers. Stetson argues that the couriers shouldn't recover for any period of unemployment. But Stetson didn't prove that any affected courier failed to exercise reasonable diligence to mitigate their damages, especially considering the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. Fiedler v. Indianhead Truck Line, Inc., 670 F.2d 806, 809 (8th Cir. 1982); Johnson v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI