Fair Labor Standards Act | Hillsborough County Wage and Hour Lawyer
The U.S District Courts issued an order on January 27th, 2009 denying the defendants motion for reconsideration of order on motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs (I Galdames, J Galdames, and G. Osorio) seek to collect, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act back pay for unpaid overtime compensation and associated damages. On September 24, 2008 the courts granted Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denied Defendants motion for summary judgment. The courts found that N&D was an enterprise for purposes of applying the FLSA. The defendants then moved for a reconsideration of the motion. Three major grounds for reconsideration are :
- An intervening change in controlling law
- The availability of new evidence
- The need to correct clear error or to prevent manifest injustice
“A motion for reconsideration should not be used as a vehicle to present authorities available at the time of the first decision or to reiterate arguments previously made.”
The Defendants argued that the order should be reconsidered because N&D is not an enterprise covered by the FLSA and therefore the relevant overtime and record keeping provisions are not applicable to it. The relevant definition of an enterprise covered by the FLSA is set forth in section 203:
1. Enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce means an enterprise that:
A.) Have employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or in activities that have employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person; and
B.) Is in an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000.
The defendants neglected to introduce evidence rebutting Plaintiffs prima facie showing that the chemicals had traveled interstate. Therefore the defendants have not presented grounds justifying reconsideration. The defenses belief that the ultimate consumer doctrine applies to enterprise coverage cases is incorrect. It is for these reasons that the defendants motion for reconsideration was denied.
Answering these broad-based questions isn’t easy. Help is a phone call away. You can contact Nancy Cavey, an experienced long-term disability attorney at 727-894-3188.