Smith v. Haynes & Haynes PC

JENNY CONNELL SMITH, Plaintiff, v. HAYNES & HAYNES PC, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 2:14-CV-1334-RDP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

July 10, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment¹ (Doc. # 20). The motion has been fully briefed. (Docs. # 21, 28, 35, and 36). For the following reasons, the court concludes Defendants' motion is due to be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Relevant Undisputed Facts

Plaintiff Jenny Connell Smith, a legal assistant/paralegal, worked for² Defendants from approximately December 2000 through April 2009, and again from July 2011 through December 2012. (Doc. # 14, ¶¶ 22, 27, and 28). Plaintiff alleges that she was misclassified as a contract employee and was improperly paid during the second occasion she worked for Defendants. (Doc. # 14, ¶¶ 56, 71-73). Plaintiff further alleges, among other things, that during the "second occasion" she worked for Defendants, she worked in excess of forty (40) hours in various weeks and was not paid overtime in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). (Doc. # 14, ¶ 65).

On April 14, 2011, prior to her second period working with Defendants, Plaintiff filed a Voluntary Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petition with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division. (Docs. # 13, 29-3). The Petition was signed under penalty of perjury. (Doc. # 13 at 3). At the time she filed the Petition, Plaintiff worked for the law firm of Cochran & Associates, earning $3,750.00 per month. (Doc. # 13).

Shortly after filing the Petition, Plaintiff returned to work with Defendants. She planned to perform paralegal work not only for Defendants, but also for other attorneys in the Birmingham area. (Doc. # 13). Her bankruptcy case remained open throughout the entirety of her second stint of work with Defendants. Nevertheless, at no time did Plaintiff amend her Bankruptcy Petition or schedules. (Doc. # 29-3). Item 21 on Schedule B to Plaintiff's Bankruptcy Petition required Plaintiff to disclose "Other contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature . . .." Plaintiff did not identify any contingent or unliquidated claims in her bankruptcy schedules. (Doc. # 13 at 26).

Plaintiff's bankruptcy plan was confirmed on August 24, 2011. (Docs. # 13 at 61-62, 29-3). During the pendency of Plaintiff's Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, she was not obligated to make any payments on over $63,000.00 in student loans which were guaranteed by the United States Department of Education. (Doc. 13 at 64-66). On January 30, 2013, Plaintiff's bankruptcy case was dismissed due to her non-compliance. (Doc. 13 at 67-69).

On July 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed the current action. (Doc. # 1). In her original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that she complained, both during the second stint in which she worked with Defendants and after, that she was misclassified and not being paid the overtime to which she was entitled. (Doc. # 1, ¶21).

On August 6, 2014, Plaintiff's original counsel withdrew and new counsel appeared. (Docs. # 6, 8, and 11). On August 11, 2014, the court conducted a status conference. At that status conference, Defendants' counsel informed the court that they planned to filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of judicial estoppel based on Plaintiff's failure to disclose her potential overtime claim in her bankruptcy proceeding.

On August 27, 2014, Defendants filed their motion raising the judicial estoppel argument. (Doc. # 12). Approximately ten (10) hours after Defendants filed their motion, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint which omitted the allegation made in Plaintiff's original Complaint that Plaintiff had complained to Defendants, both during and after the second occasion she worked with Defendants, about their failure to pay her overtime. (Doc. # 14).

On October 17, 2014, in opposition to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff submitted an affidavit stating, "During the entire time I worked for Haynes & Haynes, I was not aware I was entitled to overtime pay for hours worked over 40 per week." (Doc. # 29-3).

II. Summary Judgment Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The party asking for summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings or filings which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party has met its burden, the Rule requires the non-moving party to go beyondthe pleadings and -- by pointing to affidavits, or depositions, answers to interrogatories, and/or admissions on file -- designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See id. at 324.

The substantive law will identify which facts are material and which are irrelevant. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). All reasonable doubts about the facts and all justifiable inferences are resolved in favor of the non-movant. See Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993). A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See id. 249.

When faced with a "properly supported motion for summary judgment, [the non-moving party] must come forward with specific factual evidence, presenting more than mere allegations." Gargiulo v. G.M. Sales, Inc., 131 F.3d 995, 999 (11th Cir. 1997). As Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. teaches, Rule 56(c) "does not allow the plaintiff to simply rest on his allegations made in the complaint; instead, as the party bearing the burden of proof of trial, he must come forward with at least some evidence to support each element essential to his case at trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. "Mere allegations" made by plaintiffs are insufficient. Id.

Summary judgment is mandated "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. "Summary judgment may be granted if the non-moving party's evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative."Sawyer v. Southwest Airlines Co., 243 F. Supp.2d 1257, 1262 (D.Kan. 2003) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 250-51).

"[A]t the summary judgment stage the judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. "Essentially, the inquiry is 'whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to the jury or whether it is so onesided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.'" Sawyer, 243 F. Supp.2d at 1262 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52); see also LaRoche v. Denny's, Inc., 62 F. Supp.2d 1366, 1371 (S.D. Fla. 1999) ("The law is clear ... that suspicion, perception, opinion, and belief cannot be used to defeat a motion for summary judgment.").

III. Analysis

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts the following claims: (1) Count I - Violations of the FLSA's Overtime Requirements; (2) Count II - Retaliation in Violation of FLSA; (3) Count III - Breach of Contract; and (4) Count IV - Slander. Each of these claims is addressed below.

A. Judicial Estoppel Bars Plaintiff's FLSA and Breach of Contract Claims

Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to disclose her potential overtime claims to the bankruptcy court at any time during the pendency of her bankruptcy petition, and therefore those claims are barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. (Doc. # 21). Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is based on the same underlying facts as her FLSA failure to pay overtime claim: Defendants failure to pay "overtime for hours worked over forty in a work week." (Doc. # 14 at 13-14, 15-16). Thus, both claims arose at the same time, under the same facts, and are subject to the court's judicial estoppel analysis.

"Judicial estoppel protects the integrity of the judicial system by barring litigants from deliberately taking inconsistent positions based on the 'exigencies of the moment.' Jones v. U.S., 467 Fed.Appx. 815, 817 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir. 2002)). One context where judicial estoppel may be applicable is where a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit is also, or has been, a debtor in bankruptcy. In Burnes, the Eleventh Circuit explained the importance of a debtor's full disclosure regarding civil litigation in bankruptcy proceedings:

A debtor seeking shelter under the bankruptcy laws must disclose all assets, or potential assets, to the bankruptcy court. The duty to disclose is a continuing one that does not end once the forms are submitted to the bankruptcy court; rather, a debtor must amend his financial statements if circumstances change. Full and honest disclosure in a bankruptcy case is crucial to the effective functioning of the federal bankruptcy system. For example, creditors rely on a debtor's disclosure statements in determining whether to contest or consent to a no asset discharge. Bankruptcy courts also rely on the accuracy of the disclosure statements when considering whether to approve a no asset discharge. Accordingly, the importance of full and honest disclosure cannot be overstated.

Burnes, 291 F.3d at 1286 (internal citations and quotation marks...