EAS Postal Employees Awarded $$$Thousands in FLSA suit
posted August 8, 2004
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) actions against the U.S. Postal Service, regardless of the amount of the claim, a Louisiana federal magistrate judge ruled April 22,(2003) (Ronald E. Arceneaux, et al. v. United States Postal Service, E.D. La.; 2003 U.S. Dist.).
U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. rejected the Postal Service’s argument that the Tucker Act vested exclusive jurisdiction of the action with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims because the action, which sought more than $10,000 in damages, was against “the United States.”
FLSA Claims
Ronald Arceneaux and Joseph Candilora (EAS-17 EEO Counselors/Investigators) sued their employer, the U.S. Postal Service, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs alleged that the Postal Service violated the FLSA by knowingly and incorrectly classifying them as exempt employees and failing to pay them overtime wages.
The plaintiffs sought unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. The Postal Service filed a memorandum in opposition, disputing liability and the amount of damages.
In addition, the Postal Service argued that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Tucker Act provides that the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over non-tort actions against the United States that seek more than $10,000 in damages.
Postal Service Not United States
Magistrate Judge Wilkinson concluded that the plaintiffs’ suit against the Postal Service is not a suit “against the United States” for purposes of the Tucker Act.
Although the magistrate judge could find no opinions rendered in lawsuits against the Postal Service under the FLSA that addressed the question, the magistrate judge found that “the courts are nearly uniform in finding that the Tucker Act does not apply to claims against the Postal Service, except in inverse condemnation cases,” regardless of the amount of the claim because the Postal Service is not the same as the United States for purposes of Tucker Act jurisdiction.
Moreover, the magistrate judge said, “Section 409(e) of the Postal Reorganization Act grants jurisdiction to the district courts over all actions against the Postal Service.”
Magistrate Judge Wilkinson denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding material facts in dispute.
Note: judgment against USPS was satisfied in July 2004-The court ordered that a judgment for Arceneaux in the full amount of $27,075.60 in back overtime wages & liquidated damages, plus interest from the date of judgment . Candilora received a judgment in the amount of $27,664.20 in back overtime wages & liquidated damages, plus interest from the date of judgment ; Arceneaux & Candilora jointly jointly received a judgment in the full amount of $18,427.50 in reasonable attorney fees, plus interest from the date of judgment. Arceneaux asserted that he was entitled to $262,340.07 in unpaid overtime for he years 1993-2001 plus attorney fees in the amount of $7500. Candilora asserted that he was entitled to $209,229.93 in unpaid overtime for the years 1993-2001, plus $7500 in attorney fees. The Postal Service had offered both employees a lump sum of $22,000 to settle the matter.
EXEMPT OR NON-EXEMPT? New FLSA Regs Prompt USPS
Change -USPS News Link
The Postal Service has completed an eight-week evaluation of all exempt EAS
positions under the new regulations governing the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) adopted by the Department of Labor in April, according to Organizational
Design and Management Manager David Cybulski. As a result of that review,
Cybulski said, all officers have been provided with a list of FLSA exempt
(non-overtime) positions that are to be converted to non-exempt (overtime)
status on Aug. 21. “As a consequence of these changes,” he said, “the
compensation policies and time and attendance for these employees will change.
All affected employees will be told of the changes by their managers/supervisors
over the next three weeks.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------