I am constantly thinking about statute of restrictions problems and cases since it is the very first defense I aim to when safeguarding a FLSA case. On event, a fit will be dismissed in one court for one factor or another and after that the focus is on whether the complainant( s) submit the fit in the proper jurisdiction and in a prompt way. An extremely current case highlights the concept that a termination in one court might trigger a statute of restrictions defense in another. This case is a lot more fascinating since the preliminary claim was dismissed without bias, The case is entitled Wright v. Waste Pro U.S.A., Inc., and released from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The called complainant, a motorist, submitted a class action looking for overtime earnings. He submitted versus the moms and dad business, Waste Pro, and the subsidiary, Waste Pro Florida in South Carolina. The business then relocated to dismiss these claims since the South Carolina courts did not have individual jurisdiction over the offenders. The South Carolina federal court concurred and dismissed the claim.
Then, 2 years later on, the complainant submitted the very same fit in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. The two-year statute of restrictions had actually ended and his only hope of conserving his case was to expect a finding of “willfulness,” which would enable a 3rd year of healing. The complainant and offender concurred that his claims would be otherwise untimely if the willfulness requirement did not use. The federal Judge in Florida ruled the claims were not tolled in Florida throughout the amount of time the South Carolina case required to work its method through and dismissed the case with bias. The Court discovered there was no basis for fair tolling, which would have conserved the claim for the complainant.
The Eleventh Circuit verified the termination. The Court concurred that the fit was not tolled throughout the time the South Carolina case weaved through the system. The Court kept in mind these were different cases and mentioned that “for functions of a restrictions duration, an action that is dismissed without bias is normally dealt with as never ever submitted. The Court clearly mentioned that cases brought under the FLSA “are not an exception to that guideline.” The Court likewise would not enable fair tolling to bring the case within the time limitations, as that was an amazing solution just permitted if there was no other solution at law, which the called complainant performed in truth have, e.g., submitting a “placeholder” fit in Florida to keep the Florida claims from fading away.
The Takeaway
This is a circumstances where a computing complainant attempted to play both ends down the middle and lost. He attempted to hedge his bets by filing in one State and keeping the other jurisdiction in his back pocket. I am specifically delighted about the Eleventh Circuit shooting down the fair tolling accusations. That teaching is to be conjured up just in remarkable scenarios and gladly the Court discovered these machinations did not fall under that narrow crevice.
Much better luck next time …