Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Weaver v. Legend Senior Living, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

July 20, 2017

DEBRA WEAVER, et al., Plaintiffs,



         Defendants Legend Senior Living, LLC and Tim Buchanan filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 45), addressing Counts One, Three, Seven, and Eight. Plaintiffs responded in opposition to the motion. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court finds as follows.

         In this putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Plaintiffs have created two groups. The first group, Plaintiffs Weaver, Dimit, Wieland, Ooten, Morrison, Kilgore, Slemp, Praytor, Harris-Hodges, Jones and Walker, allege they were “all originally properly characterized by Defendants as exempt status employees for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act, but their exempt status was lost due to an improper deduction by Defendants from their paychecks.” Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 1. Plaintiffs Townsend, Henderson, Nesbitt, Coover and Kbabra contend Defendants improperly treated them as exempt employees for purposes of overtime compensation under the FLSA when they were truly non-exempt.

         In Count One, Plaintiffs, without specifically identifying which ones, allege they were entitled to non-discretionary bonuses as part of their compensation packages based on a pre-determined formula.[1] They contend that Defendants made improper deductions from their pay, because they were entitled to receive these bonus payments, which Defendants failed to make. As a result, Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to overtime compensation from October 2013 for any week in which they worked in excess of forty hours. Defendants seek dismissal of Count One, arguing that Plaintiffs' allegations fail to state a claim, because there were no deductions from their salary, merely unpaid bonuses that did not impact the payments Defendant made to Plaintiff for salary.

         Under the FLSA, employees are either “exempt” or “nonexempt.” Nonexempt employees are entitled to overtime pay at a rate of time and one-half of their regular rate of pay. Exempt employees are not entitled to overtime pay. A defendant employer bears the burden of establishing that an employee is exempt under the test enunciated by the Department of Labor. Lederman v. Frontier Fire Protection, Inc., 685 F.3d 1151, 1157- 58 (10th Cir.2012). Specifically the questions are how much an employee is paid, how they are paid, and what type of work the employee performs. Because establishing an employee's exempt status is an affirmative defense, and Defendant raises the issue via motion to dismiss, Defendants can only prevail if the facts establishing the affirmative defense are apparent on the face of the complaint. See Miller v. Shell Oil Co., 345 F.2d 891, 893 (10th Cir. 1965)(“Under Rule 12(b), a defendant may raise an affirmative defense by a motion to dismiss for the failure to state a claim. If the defense appears plainly on the face of the complaint itself, the motion may be disposed of under this rule.”).

         Plaintiffs plead at the outset that they were properly characterized by Defendants as exempt employees, but that this status was lost as a result of improper deductions by Defendants.[2] The Court construes this as a challenge to Plaintiffs' salary basis, that is how Plaintiffs were paid. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a) (“An employee will be considered to be paid on a ‘salary basis' within the meaning of these regulations if the employee regularly receives each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee's compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed.”). Section 541.602(a) thereafter notes that an employee must receive the full salary for any week in which the employee performs work, subject to certain exceptions provided in (b). 29 C.F.R. § 541.603(a) provides that “[a]n employer who makes improper deductions from salary shall lose the exemption if the facts demonstrate that the employer did not intend to pay employees on a salary basis.” Such deductions will result in loss of the exemption for the period of time in which improper deductions were made, for employees in the same job classification and working for the same managers who imposed the improper deductions. Id. at (b). Accordingly, in order for Defendants to prevail on the instant motion, it must be apparent from the face of the Second Amended Complaint that Plaintiffs were paid on a “salary basis.”

         The Court finds that Defendant is entitled to dismissal of Count One, because even accepting as true Plaintiffs' contention that they were deprived of non-discretionary bonus payments, the absence of such payments would not legally constitute improper deductions under § 541.603, which specifically refers to § 541.602(a). The failure to pay non-discretionary bonuses is not listed in § 541.602(a), which provides in addition to the above, that “[a]n employee is not paid on a salary basis if deductions from the employee's predetermined compensation are made for absences occasioned by the employer or by the operating requirements of the business. If the employee is ready, willing and able to work, deductions may not be made for time when work is not available.” Section 541.602 is designed to separate those employees paid on a salary-basis from those paid more like hourly employees. Plaintiffs Weaver, Dimit, Wieland, Ooten, Morrison, Kilgore, Slemp, Praytor, Hodges-Harris, and Jones each allege they were paid a salary, and the allegation that bonuses were not paid does not fall within the parameters that their regular pay was reduced on the basis for the quantity or quality of work performed.[3] Although the issue of an employee's exempt status is an affirmative defense, the Court concludes that accepting Plaintiffs' allegations as true, the Second Amended Complaint establishes on its face that Plaintiffs were paid on a salary-basis despite the absence of certain bonus payments. As such, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with regard to Count One.[4]

         In Count Three Plaintiffs assert the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act (“OPLA”) requires payment of overtime pay for weekly hours in excess of forty at the rate of one and one-half times the employee's regular rate of pay. Second Amended Complaint ¶ 295. Plaintiffs contend Defendants are liable for the unpaid amounts pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 40 § 165.9. Defendants seek dismissal on the basis that the OPLA does not mandate overtime pay. The Court concurs with Defendants' position.

         Although Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish McKenzie v. Renberg's Inc., 94 F.3d 1478 (10th Cir. 1996), due to its context, the holding therein is relevant to the outcome of this case.

The absence of any Oklahoma law on this subject is underscored by the fact that although the Oklahoma legislature has adopted the federal standards for minimum wages, see Okla. Stat. tit. 40 § 197.2 (making it unlawful for an employer in Oklahoma to “pay any employee a wage of less than the current federal minimum wage for all hours worked”), it has not adopted the FLSA standards governing maximum hours and overtime, see 29 U.S.C. § 207.

Id. at 1487, see also Courtright v. Bd. of County Com'rs of Payne County, Ok, 2008 WL 2446138, *3 (W.D.Okla. 2008)(“Oklahoma law does not establish standards regarding the payment of overtime wages, except for certain employees engaged in the construction of public works. See Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 196.3”). As noted by the Court in Price v. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, 2014 WL 1217862 (N.D.Okla. Mar. 24, 2014), the Oklahoma Department of Labor's Frequently Asked Questions addresses the issue. “Oklahoma has no state overtime laws.” www.okgov/odol/documents/WHWageLawBooklet2016.pdf. Accordingly, the Court concurs with Defendants that Plaintiffs' Count Three should be dismissed.

         In Count Seven, Plaintiffs Weaver, Dimit, Wieland, Ooten, Morrison, Kilgore, Slemp, Praytor, Hodges-Harris and Jones seek relief against Defendant Legend Senior Living, LLC, under a theory of breach of contract, addressing the March 2015 amendment to the method for calculating non-discretionary bonuses. Plaintiffs Ooten and Slemp did not respond to the individualized arguments presented against them by Defendant Legend. Accordingly, the Court considers the argument as conceded by Plaintiffs Ooten and Slemp with regard to the breach of contract claim, and thus the motion to dismiss is granted as to these two Plaintiffs. The Court construes the claim as alleging that implementation of new bonus guidelines in March 2015 was a breach of contract.[5]

         The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim for breach of contract by virtue of reference to the offer letter and the attached bonus structure, both attached to the Second Amended Complaint. The Court makes no findings as to Plaintiffs' ultimate ability to prove either the existence of a binding contract or the breach thereof, however, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court precedent, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the offer constituted a contract, one term of which limited Defendant's right to modify the bonus compensation plan, but that Defendant nevertheless made changes thereto.[6]

         Finally, in Count Eight, Plaintiffs assert a claim for quantum meruit/unjust enrichment premised on Defendants' alleged failure to pay them overtime compensation in accordance with the terms of the FLSA. The Court having determined that Defendants are entitled to dismissal of the FLSA claims of the Weaver Plaintiffs concludes that dismissal of their claims for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment is proper. With regard to the Townsend group of Plaintiffs, those who contend they were erroneously categorized as ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.