Haynes v. S.C. Waste LLC

633 F.Supp.3d 769

Jermaine HAYNES, Francis Crawford, Vinquandrae Hallman,Lashawn Martin, Frederick Perry, Carey Ryant,Kevin Williams, and Gregory Lihan, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHERN CAROLINA WASTE LLC,d/b/a, SC Waste, Defendant.

C/A No. 5:21-cv-1544-SAL

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division

Signed September 30, 2022

Joseph Scott Falls, Falls Legal, Charleston, SC, David W. Ricksecker, Pro Hac Vice, Ryan C. Cowdin, Pro Hac Vice, McGillivary Steele Elkin LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Daniel Lesesne Phillips, Robert Daniel Moseley, Jr., Moseley Marcinak Law Group LLP, Greenville, SC, for Defendant.

ORDER

Sherri A. Lydon, United States District Judge

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaims and Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses, ECF No. 29, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 42, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 43. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion on the issue of liability and finds Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act's ("FLSA") overtime requirement. Further, the court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment to the extent it requests liquidated damages. However, the court grants Defendant's summary judgment motion and applies only a two-year statute of limitations period for damages calculations. Last, the court determines Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff Perry's retaliation claim.

BACKGROUND

I. Procedural History

On May 25, 2021, Jermaine Haynes, Francis Crawford, Vinquandrae Hallman, Lashawn Martin, Frederick Perry, Carey Ryant, and Kevin Williams ("Plaintiffs")¹ filed their initial complaint in this action against Defendant Southern Carolina Waste LLC, d/b/a SC Waste ("Defendant" or "SC Waste"). [ECF No. 1]. In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege Defendant failed to pay them overtime compensation as required by § 207 of FLSA. Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiffs request the court award backpay, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs, as well as other equitable relief under the FLSA. Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiff Perry also proceeds individually, alleging Defendant unlawfully terminated him in retaliation for exercising his federally protected rights in violation of § 215 of the FLSA. Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff Perry requests punitive damages, lost wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs, as well as any other legal, injunctive and equitable relief available under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

On June 18, 2021, Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiffs' initial complaint, which included two counterclaims—one against Plaintiff Perry alleging negligence and one against Plaintiff Crawford for an outstanding loan balance owed to Defendant. [ECF No. 6, ¶¶ 85, 95]. On July 9, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendant's two Counterclaims and Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses. [ECF No. 9]. On July 23, 2021, Defendant filed its Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss and Strike [ECF No. 10]. Plaintiffs filed their Reply supporting its dismissal motion on July 30, 2021. [ECF No. 23].

On September 8, 2021, following the court's grant of their Consent Motion to Amend the Complaint, Plaintiffs filed their operative Amended Complaint naming an additional plaintiff, Gregory Lihan regarding their FLSA overtime pay claim. [ECF No. 26]. On September 21, 2021, Defendant filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 27]. On October 7, 2021, Defendant filed an Amended Answer again asserting various affirmative defenses and bringing counterclaims for negligence and recovery of an allegedly unpaid loan balance. [ECF No. 28]. Plaintiffs Renewed their Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaims and Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses on October 12, 2021. [ECF No. 29]. On October 25, 2021, Defendant filed its Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss. [ECF No. 30].

On January 31, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 42; ECF No. 43]. On February 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike Answers to Interrogatories and Select Summary Judgment Exhibits while also filing their Response to Defendant's summary judgment motion. [ECF No. 44; ECF No. 45]. On the same day, Defendant filed its response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 46]. Both parties filed Replies on February 22, 2022. [ECF No. 47; ECF No. 48]. On February 28, 2022, Defendant filed its response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Answers to Interrogatories and Select Summary Judgment Exhibits, [ECF No. 50], to which Plaintiffs replied on March 7, 2022, [ECF No. 53].

On July 6, 2022, the court entered an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendant's Amended 26.03 Responses and Select Summary Judgment Exhibits, in part by limiting the evidence in Defendant's Rule 26.03 responses and summary judgment exhibits to include only affidavits and testimony of Russ Taylor, owner of Taylor Pallets & Recycling, Inc. ("Taylor Pallets") and Jim Pratt of Sunshine Recycling, LLC ("Sunshine Recycling"). [ECF No. 62].² Id.

All pending motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for consideration by this court.

II. Relevant Undisputed Facts

Plaintiffs are current or former drivers for Defendant, SC Waste, who allege they worked overtime hours without overtime pay. [ECF No. 26, ¶ 1]. Additionally, Plaintiff Perry proceeds individually, alleging Defendant fired him for exercising his rights under FLSA. Id. ¶ 3. Defendant is a waste hauling company based in Orangeburg, South Carolina. Id. ¶ 15; [ECF No. 28, ¶ 15]. Greg Sutcliffe is Defendant's sole owner. [ECF No. 42-2, Sutcliffe Depo., pp. 19:5, 30:5-11, 31:1-9, 44:4-11]. Defendant's gross sales for its services approximated 5 million dollars in 2021. Id. at p. 43:9-12. Greg Sutcliffe also owns and manages SC Mulch. Id. at p. 19:3-5.

Defendant's business primarily involves delivering empty 22-foot-long dumpsters to its customers and removing and replacing them once they are full. [ECF No. 42-2, Sutcliffe Depo., pp. 26:3-27:23]. In addition to this trash service, Defendant offers its customers a recycling program in which it hauls materials such as concrete, cardboard, plastic, wood, and tires. Id. at pp. 42:18-43:1. If the materials cannot be recycled, Defendant hauls them to the Orangeburg landfill two doors down from its property. Id. at p. 43:2-8. If the materials can be recycled, Defendant takes them to various vendors, including Sunshine Recycling and Taylor Pallets. [ECF No. 43-10, ¶¶ 6, 7]. Defendant supplies Sunshine Recycling various "metal goods" which are then transported to Nucor where they "are melted down and distributed to customers throughout the United States including outside the State of South Carolina." [ECF No. 43-13, p. 4].

Defendant supplies Taylor Pallets with wood products and wood pallets. [ECF No. 42-2, Sutcliffe Depo., p. 113:19-24]. The wood products are ground into mulch by Taylor Pallets and then purchased by SC Mulch and other customers. Id. at pp. 19:3-5, 113:19-24. Defendant delivers roughly six to seven hundred wood pallets to Taylor Pallets' Orangeburg, South Carolina location a week, which are then restacked, reloaded, and shipped by Taylor Pallets to its Winder, Georgia location. [ECF No. 43-3, ¶¶ 7-9]. Russ Taylor, owner of Taylor Pallets, provides affidavit testimony the pallets are immediately transported to Taylor Pallets' Winder, Georgia location because "the Orangeburg location does not have storage capabilities." Id. ¶ 10. Defendant supplies its wood pallets product to Taylor Pallets to avoid charging its customers fees associated with dropping them off at the Orangeburg landfill. [ECF No. 46-1, Sutcliffe Depo., p. 115:1-9].

Prior to May 17, 2021, Defendant, maintaining it was exempt from paying overtime, did not pay its drivers overtime premium for the excess hours they spent hauling waste for Defendant's customers. Id. at pp. 81:15-82:3. Defendant based its position on Mr. Sutcliffe's prior work experience in the transportation industry and his independent Google and U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") website research. [ECF No. 43-2, Sutcliffe Depo., p. 153:9-20]. According to Defendant, it changed its overtime policies following a meeting with its drivers on, or around, May 13, 2021.³ Id. at pp. 98:22-99:4]. During his deposition, Mr. Sutcliffe described the change in policy as an attempt to offer the drivers a better package. Id. at pp. 97:9-98:3.

According to the Declaration of Plaintiff Perry, on Friday, May 14, 2021, Plaintiff Perry started his shift around 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. and worked until around 11:00 p.m. [ECF No. 45-1, ¶ 3]. While driving through the Orangeburg landfill gate, Plaintiff Perry inadvertently clipped the gate and destroyed it. Id.; see also [ECF No. 43-13]. Plaintiff Perry did not immediately realize he hit the gate, but a co-worker driving behind him called and informed him. Instead of immediately notifying Defendant's management of the accident, Plaintiff Perry decided to wait until the next day to inform them. [ECF No. 45-1, ¶ 3]. At 1:58 p.m. the following day, Saturday, May 15, 2021, one of Defendant's managers texted the drivers asking if anyone hit the gate. [ECF No. 43-8, p. 2]. Plaintiff Perry responded he believed his truck hit the gate, but he did not hear the impact. Id. Defendant's disciplinary policies provide the failure "to immediately report accidents, injuries, [or] incidents" constitutes a severe offense warranting termination. [ECF No. 43-6, p. 2]. On May 17, 2021, Greg Sutcliffe fired Plaintiff Perry. [ECF No. 45-1, ¶ 5].

Plaintiffs bring this action alleging they are owed backpay and liquidated damages for uncompensated overtime pay. [ECF No. 26, ¶¶ 1, 2]. Plaintiffs seek the following damages:⁴

 PLAINTIFF OVERTIME HOURS RATE OF PAY BACKPAY  Jermain Haynes  357  $17/hour  $3,034.50  Francis Crawford

...