In a labor dispute litigated in the District of Arizona, a federal judge has ruled that an employee of the Cleveland Indians Baseball Company LLC (Club) is entitled to overtime pay at an amount to be settled at trial.
The judge did provide the Indians with a small victory, however, granting its motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim brought under the Arizona Wage Act (AWA), for “failure to pay wages,” since that claim “would conflict directly with Congress’s enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) remedy for employer’s overtime violations.”
Meanwhile, the court let the remaining claims stand.
Plaintiff Jenae Finton began working for the Indians as a part-time employee in November 2015. Finton was an “Assistant, Arizona Operations” for the Club’s Arizona spring training facility, a nonexempt position under the FLSA. In this position, Finton’s wages were $14 an hour in 2017 and $16 an hour in 2018. Finton reported directly to Defendant Ryan Lantz–the Director of Arizona Operations. Lantz’s supervisor, Jerry Crabb, works in the Club’s main office in Cleveland, Ohio. The job duties that Lantz assigned to Finton included “participating on various non-profit boards, working with local charities to coordinate fund-raisers, arranging and staffing player events and outings, working with vendors and business contacts to ensure the Club facilities were maintained, ordering necessary supplies, and scheduling security staff and interns.” Finton also, many times, had to “perform nightly walk-throughs of the Club’s facilities, which involved setting the alarm, walking the property, and making sure doors were closed and locked” when Lantz was unavailable. Lantz provided Crabb with a detailed “Year-Round Job Responsibilities” outline for Finton in May 2018, which identified the same job duties and several others. Finton’s participation in these activities and organizations was at Lantz’s request and benefitted the Club. Given the amount of job duties and activities Finton dealt with, she “normally did not take a lunch period and ate at her desk while working.”
The Club used a computer-based system called “ABI” to record time or hours worked by Club employees throughout Finton’s employment. But because of technical difficulties, Finton reported her hours directly to Lantz, who then was supposed to input her hours into ABI. This is where the controversy emerged as Finton worked while at home and on vacation, and Lantz allegedly failed to correctly input the hours.
Finton did not receive overtime pay for her work in December 2018 and resigned her employment with the Club in January 2019, according to the court. Finton then discovered that Lantz allegedly “altered or failed to correctly record and pay time to” her on numerous occasions. Lantz “never told” her that he “reduced her hours, disagreed with her reported time, or disciplined her for failing to use the timeclock,” the plaintiff claimed.
This led to a lawsuit in which she brought six causes of action: (1) FLSA Failure to Pay Overtime; (2) FLSA Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; (3) Arizona Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), A.R.S. § 23-362, et seq., Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; (4) Arizona Wage Act (AWA), A.R.S. § 23-350, et seq., Failure to Pay Wages; (5) Failure to Comply with Requirements of the Arizona Fair Wage and Healthy Families Act; and (6) Failure to Comply with Recordkeeping Requirements of the AWA.
The Club moved for summary judgment on all six causes of action, while Finton moved for summary judgment on five of the six causes of action.
The court noted in its analysis that FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., regulates the wage, hour, and working conditions of American employees, creating an enforceable federal employment rights, such as rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation. Finton was subject to the FLSA.
Regarding the first count, the court held that Finton produced “sufficient evidence to support her overtime claim and estimates such that a trier of fact could determine the amount and extent of hours worked as a matter of just and reasonable inference.” However, Finton “has not provided a sufficient estimate of her damages as it relates to overtime hours worked after specific 40-hour weeks to award damages at this time. The court therefore grants (her) summary judgment on Count I as to liability, with damages to be proven at trial.”
Turning to the FLSA Minimum Wage Claim (Count 2) and the AMWA Claim (Count 3), the court denied each side’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that it did not have enough evidence to rule on the motions.
Next up was Finton assertion of statutory violations (Count 4) against the Club, arising from Arizona law, and the Club’s subsequent motion for summary judgement. “Allowing (her) to proceed with her AWA overtime claim would conflict directly with Congress’s enactment of the FLSA’s remedy for employer’s overtime violations,” reasoned the court.
The court then considered Count 5, involving Arizona’s Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act. The court denied each side’s motion on Count 5, noting that more evidence was needed.
Lastly, Count 6 centered on the AWA’s recordkeeping and whether the Club had violated that provision. “Finton’s argument is unpersuasive. That she had trouble logging into the UltiPro payroll system at times to view this data does not change this analysis. When (she) made the Club aware of other instances in which she was unable to login to the Club’s online systems, the Club would provide her with information or access to remedy the problem.” Thus, Finton” has not shown a genuine issue of material fact,” and the Club “is therefore entitled to summary judgment.”
Jenae Finton, et al. v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co. LLC; D. Ariz.; No. CV-19-02319-PHX-MTL; 2/19/21
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Sandra Jean Creta, LEAD ATTORNEY, Creta Law Firm PLLC, Avondale, AZ. (for defendant) Donald Peder Johnsen, LEAD ATTORNEY, Gallagher & Kennedy PA, Phoenix, AZ.
