Free Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

.4 I Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR Document 123-4 Filed 08/01/2008 Page1 of 4
I EXHIBIT 3

Case 1 :04-cv—00414-SLR Document 123-4 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 2 of 4 ‘
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
. IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
_ WILLIE DAVIS, JR., NATI-IANIEL BRIDDELL, ) . .
GEORGE W. FEDDIMAN, JOSEPH GARRISON, ) C. A. NO. 04-0414-SLR
LARRY E; GIBBS and ROY H. WALTERS, )
_ _ ) J URY TRIAL DEMANDED
ALL SIMILARLY-SITUATED CURRENT AND ) g
FORMER EMLOYEES OF MOUNTAIRE ) COLLECTIVE ACTION P
FARMS, INC., MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF )
DELMARVA, INC., and MOUNTAIRE FARMS )
OF DELAWARE, INC., ) _ i
_
. Plaintiffs, ) y
)
v. ) _
) .
‘ MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., ) - —
MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELMARVA, INC., ) _
and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF ) ‘ ~
DELAWARE, INC., all Delaware corporations, )
l )
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE
REGARDING SALARY ISSUE `
Defendants are mistaken when they cited to Plaintiffs’ Response in their Answering Brief L
in Opposition to Mountaire’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs’ "concession" that they
l were salaried employees was with regard to the two—year look back period under the FLSA.
There is no question that Plaintiffs (with the exception of Willie Davis) were salaried during that
two-year period from June 21, 2002 through June 21, 2004. Indeed, the District Court
acknowledged the salaried status of the Plaintiffs because it was necessary to satisfy section
(a)(l) ofthe regulation. P `
There is Rtrther no question that the issue of the third-year status ofthe employees was
never before the Court. This is the year extending from June 21, 2001 through June 21, 2002, In
the District Court’s Memorandum Order of July 29, 2005, (D.I. No. 59 attached hereto for the

Case 1 :04-cv—00414-SLR Document 123-4 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 3 of 4 -
convenience of the Court), Judge Jordon found that the argument about the 2001 to 2002 year
"has not been addressed by the briefing and/or resolved by the Court.” As such, the Court found _
that it was not properly the subject of a motion for reargumenty
The Third Circuit raised this issue sua sponte in its Opinion dated July 20, 2006, wherein _
. it found:
"Prior to 2002, all Crew Leaders were hourly employees. n .
j The record contains a Department of Labor ("DOL")
"audit review" dated March 21, 2001. The audit review,
which was prepared by Mountaire based on oral statements .
‘ of the DOL reviewers, notes that Crew Leaders (who where
then still hourly paid) should be receiving overtime and
that house-toéhouse travel is compensable for hours worked.
Mountaire concedes that the Crew Leaders’ duties and
responsibilities did not change after they were switched to
a salaried status." *
` The focus of the briefing in both the District Court in 2005 and 2008 as well as in the
‘ Court of Appeals in 2006, revolved around the issues of whether the Crew Leaders met the
executive exemption. Indeed, that is the principle issue to be presented by the jury. Plaintiffs
U submit that it would be a manifest injustice to keep from the jury the- true facts of the Crew
Leaders’ status before June 2002. This is especially true since the 2001 to 2002 year comes into
play if the jury determines that the Crew Leaders are non-exempt and then determines, under the n
law, whether Mountaire was willful in its failure to pay overtime to the Crew Leaders during that
year.
The issues involving the 2001 to 2002 year have been present throughout this litigation.
This issue does not come into play unless and until the trier of fact finds that the Crew Leaders
are non-exempt. This issue is a derivative issue that is reached only after a determination is
l made on the exempt/non-exempt status ofthe Plaintiffs, and only if Plaintiffs prevail. Defendant
can not be prejudiced with the admission of this evidence which comes solely from its own

Case 1 :04-cv—00414-SLR Document 123-4 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 4 of 4
admissions: Audit Review done in 2001 following the 2000 DOL audit (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2) as
well as through the testimony of their Human Resources Director, Phillip Owen who has already
testified by deposition that Plaintiffs were considered non-exempt prior to becoming salaried.
(Owen deposition at 51 attached hereto).
_ A For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that evidence as to the
2001/2002 status of the Crew Leaders and the determination of their overtime status by way of
_ the audit review and the testimony of Phillip Owen be presented to the jury.
MARTIN & WILSON, P.A.
V - l ..·` / - l
. . _/{
JEF ‘-P Y K. MARTIN, ESQUIRE (#2407)
TIMOTHY J. `WILSON, ESQUIRE (#4323)
1508 Pennsylvania Ave
_ Wilmington, DE 19806
(302) 77741681
]`H1B1TiH(@,IH3.fIiH3H(TlWllSOH.COH1
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintgjr
DATED: '7i$0l.0g r

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 123-4

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 123-4

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 123-4

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00414-SLR

Document 123-4

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 4 of 4