Hodges v. S.D. Sch. of Mines & Tech.

647 F.Supp.3d 761

Tasha HODGES, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH DAKOTA SCHOOL OF MINES AND TECHNOLOGY, Defendant.

CIV. 5:22-5011-LLP

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division

Signed December 21, 2022

Daniel K. Brendtro, Hovland, Rasmus, Brendtro & Trzynka, Prof. PLLC, Sioux Falls, SD, Rolf T. Fiebiger, Pro Hac Vice, Fiebiger Law LLC, Edina, MN, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge

Pending before the Court is Defendant South Dakota School of Mines and Technology's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff Tasha Hodges's Fair Labor Standards Act claim (Doc. 11) and Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's denial of her motion to amend her complaint to add the Board of Regents as a defendant to her claim for retaliation arising under SDCL § 60-11-17.1 (Doc. 32). For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied and Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is granted.

BACKGROUND

On January 28, 2022, Plaintiff Tasha Hodges ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Defendant South Dakota School of Mines and Technology ("Defendant") alleging the following claims: 1) sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a)(1); 2) sex discrimination in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a)(1); 3) sex discrimination in violation of SDCL § 20-13-22—Educational institutions' unfair or discriminatory practices; 4) sex discrimination in violation of SDCL § 20-13-10—Unfair or discriminatory practices; 5) retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 5) retaliation under SDCL § 20-13-26—Concealing, aiding, compelling, or inducing unlawful discrimination—Threats or reprisals; 6) a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203; 7) failure to pay wages owed in violation of SDCL § 60-11-9; and 8) retaliation and reprisal for complaints about wages in violation of SDCL § 60-11-17.1.

On May 12, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 11). In support of its motion, Defendant argued that it lacked capacity to be sued under Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that the proper defendant in this matter was instead the South Dakota Board of Regents. (Doc. 12 at 64-65). Defendant argued that even if it were the proper party to this action, dismissal was appropriate based on Plaintiff's failure to effectuate proper service on it. (Doc. 12 at 64). Finally, Defendant argued that to the extent the Court found that Plaintiff properly served the correct party, her claim that Defendant violated the FLSA by its failure to pay her overtime in 2019 fails as a matter of law because the allegations in the complaint establish that she was a professionally exempt employee during that time frame. (Doc. 12 at 64).

On May 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Request for Summonses to the South Dakota School of Mines, a state institution under the control of the Board of Regents, care of the Attorney General and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem. (Doc. 13). On May 23, 2022, new summonses were issued pursuant to Ms. Hodges' May 13, 2022 request. (Doc. 15). On May 27, 2022, Ms. Hodges filed a Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint and for an Extension of Time for Service of Process. (Doc. 16). The Governor and the Attorney General were served the summonses and complaint that same day—May 27, 2022. (Docs. 19, 20).

On May 27, 2022, Plaintiff moved to amend her complaint to substitute the South Dakota Board of Regents for the School of Mines as a defendant in this matter. (Doc. 16). Plaintiff argued that her claims against the Board of Regents relate back to the date the original complaint was filed under Federal Rule of Procedure 15(c) and are thus timely. (Docs. 16, 17). Defendant opposed Plaintiff's motion to amend on the basis of futility. (Doc. 25). Defendant argued that the statute of limitations had run on Plaintiff's claims and that her claims did not relate back to the date of the filing of the initial complaint. (Doc. 25 at 222).

On October 5, 2022, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion to Amend. (Doc. 30). The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to add the Board of Regents as a defendant to her federal law claims, finding that such claims related back to the filing of her initial complaint. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to add the Board of Regents as a defendant to her claims arising under SDCL Ch. 60-11, finding that they were untimely under South Dakota law because service, rather the filing of the complaint initiates a lawsuit in South Dakota and service upon the School of Mines had not been effectuated within the two-year statute of limitations applicable to wage claims. The Court reserved judgment on Plaintiff's motion to amend with regard to her claims arising under SDCL Ch. 20-13. The Court ordered that Plaintiff file a brief within ten days addressing whether her claims under SDCL Ch. 20-13 were time-bared for failure to file a charge of discrimination within 180 days of the alleged discrimination and allowed Defendant an additional 10 days in which to file a brief in response. In its Opinion, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to all of Plaintiff's claims but for her Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claim and reserved judgment on this claim. The Court ordered that Plaintiff file a brief within 10 calendar days responding to Defendant's argument that Plaintiff was a professionally exempt employee in 2019 and therefore not entitled to overtime pay and permitting Defendant an additional 10 days in which to file a reply brief.

On May 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed her supplemental brief in response to the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order. (Doc. 32). Therein, Plaintiff concedes that she failed to file a discrimination charge within 180 days in order to commence a SDCL Ch. 20-13 claim and agrees that dismissal of these claims is appropriate. (Doc. 32 at 278). Plaintiff also urges the Court to deny Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's FLSA claim, arguing that Defendant has failed to prove that based upon the allegations in the complaint, there are no material issues of fact regarding Plaintiff's exempt status. Finally, Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its order denying Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to add the South Dakota Board of Regents as a defendant to her retaliation claim arising under SDCL § 60-11-17.1.

Because Plaintiff concedes that dismissal of her SDCL Ch. 20-13 claims is appropriate, the Court will now address Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pertaining to Plaintiff's FLSA claim and Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider the Court's opinion denying leave to amend to add the South Dakota Board of Regents as a defendant to her SDCL § 60-11-17.1 claim.

DISCUSSION

I. FLSA Claim

Defendant has moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Plaintiff's claim that Defendant violated the FLSA by its failure to pay her overtime in 2019 fails as a matter of law because the allegations in the complaint establish that she was a professionally exempt employee during that time frame. (Doc. 12 at 64).

A. Background

In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges she was employed by the School of Mines as a Research Scientist II ("RSII") in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department ("the Department") from May 22, 2019 until June 19, 2020. (Doc. 1, ¶ 6). From May 22, 2019, until March 22, 2020, Plaintiff worked in the RSII position part-time. (Doc. 1, ¶ 6). Plaintiff started off as a salaried employee for a few months, but was then informed that she was not paid enough to be a salaried employee and was going to hourly pay and would need to enter her time on a timecard. (Doc. 1, ¶ 7). Plaintiff's hourly wage as an RSII was $27.50 per hour. (Doc. 1, ¶ 10).

Throughout Plaintiff's part-time employment, Plaintiff alleges that her supervisor, Bret Lingwall, told her that she should only enter 20 hours on her timecard, but still demanded that she work like a salaried employee. (Doc. 1, ¶ 7). Plaintiff alleges that during her employment as a RSII, she consistently worked well beyond the 20 hours per week for which she was paid, and often worked more than 40 hours per week. (Doc. 1, ¶ 9). Plaintiff alleges that over the week from Sunday October 20, 2019 to Saturday October 26, 2019, she worked 54.5 hours, but was not paid overtime for her hours above 40 as required under the FLSA. (Doc. 1, ¶ 15). Plaintiff alleges that Lingwall knew that she was working more than 40 hours that week yet required Plaintiff to report having worked only 20 hours. (Doc. 1, ¶ 17).

On March 24, 2020, Plaintiff was informed by HR that she was moving to fulltime employment. (Doc. 1, ¶ 28). Plaintiff alleges that she became a salaried employee at this time. (Doc. 1, ¶ 31).

In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's failure to pay her, when she was an hourly employee, earned wages and overtime for hours worked beyond 40 hours a week violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 6, 77; see also 32 at 282-83). Defendant has moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Plaintiff's 2019 FLSA claim fails as a matter of law because she was a professionally exempt employee under the FLSA at that time. (Doc. 12 at 70-73).

B. Standard of Review

A court may grant a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings "only when there is no dispute as to any material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Wishnatsky v. Rovner, 433 F.3d 608, 610 (8th Cir. 2006). When ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court applies the same standard it...