Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 08-04-2023
Case Style:
Case Number: 8:20-cv-01846
Judge: Ajmel Ahsen Quereshi
Court: United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Prince George's County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Chris Smith and Neil Hyman
Defendant's Attorney: David StevensSteve Bers
Description: Greenbelt, Maryland employment law lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants on a Fair Labor Standards Act violation theory.
This was a dispute over unpaid overtime wages a
BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are discussed in detail in the Court's Memorandum Opinion accompanying the March 31, 2023 Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting, in Part, and Denying, in Part, Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 38. In that context, I will briefly lay out the relevant facts and the developments since that Opinion was published.
Defendant Constantine Commercial Construction Inc. (“CCC”) is a commercial construction company owned and managed by Defendant Michael Constantine, President of CCC. ECF No. 38, at 2. Defendant Diana Parsons is the Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administration of CCC. Id. Plaintiffs Paige Hunt and Colleen Smith began working at CCC as administrative assistants in March 2014 and September 2017, respectively. Id. In that role, their responsibilities “included answering the telephone, receiving mail and packages, greeting visitors, filing documents, assisting with purchase orders, ‘submittals,' certificates of insurance, and requests for information, and more generally providing administrative support.” Id.
Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on June 17, 2020. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on March 25, 2021. ECF No. 4. In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. Id. at 6-9. Plaintiffs also alleged gender discrimination, creation of a hostile work environment, and retaliation. Id. at 10-14. Defendants filed their Answer on May 3, 2021. ECF No. 6. The Parties engaged in discovery and attended one settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Brendan A. Hurson in an attempt to resolve the matter. ECF No. 26. After concluding discovery, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 17, 2022. ECF No. 33. Defendants responded in opposition and filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on August 5, 2022. ECF No. 34. The parties filed their respective Replies, and the Motions were resolved on March 31, 2023 in this Court's Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion and granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion. ECF Nos. 38, 39. In that Order, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims alleging sex discrimination on the basis of disparate treatment but declined to dismiss Plaintiffs' remaining claims. Id. Following that decision, the parties submitted a Status Report and noted that they were pursuing private mediation to resolve the remaining claims. ECF No. 40. On June 13, 2023, the parties reported that the case had settled and agreed to submit a Motion for Approval of the Settlement by July 7, 2023. ECF Nos. 42, 45.
Still pending are a number of claims against Defendants, including claims for unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. ECF No. 49, at 1. In support of these claims, Plaintiffs allege that they were non-exempt employees during the relevant time period and that, during the term of their employment, they worked overtime hours for which they were not compensated. Id. Defendants contest this, arguing that Plaintiffs were exempt from overtime and were paid all wages that they earned. Id. In the alternative, Defendants allege that even if Plaintiffs were misclassified, “any overtime worked by Plaintiffs would have been at most de minimis given the fact that Plaintiffs' work was performed exclusively in Defendant's business office, which was only open during certain hours Monday to Friday.” Id. at 1-2.
While neither party has complete time records, Plaintiff Hunt estimates that she worked 51.5 hours per week and Plaintiff Smith estimates that she worked 47 hours per week. Id. at 2. Defendants dispute these numbers, denying that Plaintiffs worked any overtime but estimating that, at most, Plaintiffs could have worked an average of two hours of overtime during the weeks they could have conceivably worked overtime: this would mean $8,030.88 in overtime for Plaintiff Hunt accrued over 99 weeks and $6,048.00 for Plaintiff Smith accrued over 84 weeks. Id. Plaintiffs' estimates of their lost wages over the same time periods are substantially higher, alleging $46,177.56 accrued for Plaintiff Hunt and $21,158.00 for Plaintiff Smith. Id.
Outcome: Parties have agreed to a settlement that resolves all claims for $115,000.00, comprised of $57,500.00 to Plaintiff Hunt and $57,500.00 to Plaintiff Smith. Under the terms of the settlement, Plaintiff Hunt would receive $11,465.32 in wages, $22,930.65 in statutory damages, and $23,104.03 in attorneys' fees and expenses. Plaintiff Smith would receive $11,478.23 in wages, $22,956.46 in statutory damages, and $23,065.31 in attorneys' fees and expenses. Id. at 2-3. After reaching this agreement, the parties filed the pending Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Dismissal on June 27, 2023. Id.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: