Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Fifth Circuit Joins Circuits Holding FLSA Retaliation Plaintiffs Can Seek Emotional Distress Damages
Practical Law Legal Update w-005-1573 (Approx. 6 pages)
Fifth Circuit Joins Circuits Holding FLSA Retaliation Plaintiffs Can Seek Emotional Distress Damages
by Practical Law Labor & Employment
| Published on 29 Dec 2016 • USA (National/Federal) |
In Pineda v. JTCH Apartments, LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a plaintiff alleging retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) may recover damages related to emotional distress.
On December 19, 2016, in Pineda v. JTCH Apartments, LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a matter of first impression, joined other circuits in holding that a plaintiff alleging retaliation in violation of the FLSA may recover emotional distress damages. The Fifth Circuit also held that the FLSA retaliation provision does not protect a plaintiff's nonemployee spouse against whom the employee spouse's employer takes action. ( (Dec. 19, 2016).)
Background
Santiago Pineda did maintenance work for JTCH, an entity that was also the landlord for Pineda and his wife, Maria Pena. Part of Pineda's compensation for his work was discounted rent. Shortly after Pineda sued JTCH in US district court for unpaid overtime, JTCH sent Pineda and his wife a notice to vacate their apartment for failure to pay rent and demanded back rent from Pineda. Pineda subsequently amended his complaint to include a retaliation claim.
During a US district court jury trial:
- Pineda unsuccessfully sought a jury instruction on his claimed emotional distress damages.
- JTCH obtained judgment as a matter of law on Maria Pena's retaliation claim because she was not JTCH's employee.
Pineda succeeded on both his overtime and retaliation claims and was awarded:
- Unpaid overtime.
- Money damages on his retaliation claim.
- Liquidated damages.
- Attorney's fees.
Pineda and Pena appealed other rulings, however, arguing that:
- The jury should have been instructed on emotional distress damages for Pineda.
- Pena was within the "zone of interests" protected by the FLSA retaliation provision and should have been able to seek damages for her FLSA retaliation claim.
In addition, JTCH appealed the award of attorney's fees to Pineda.
Outcome
The Fifth Circuit:
- Affirmed the judgment from the district court in part and reversed the judgment in part.
- Held that:
- emotional distress damages are available to a plaintiff in an FLSA retaliation claim and that Pineda's request for a jury instruction on emotional distress should have been granted; and
- a nonemployee may not bring an FLSA retaliation claim, so the district court correctly dismissed Pena's retaliation claim.
- Remanded the case to address whether Pineda should obtain emotional distress damages.
- Did not address JTCH's argument regarding the attorney's fees award but acknowledged the significant discrepancy between the total damages awarded to Pineda (approximately $5,000) and the attorney's fees awarded to his counsel (over $75,000).
On the issue of emotional distress damages, the Fifth Circuit noted that:
- The FLSA damages provision does not specifically mention emotional distress damages (29 U.S.C. § 216(b)).
- The Sixth and Seventh Circuits each have held that the FLSA allows a plaintiff to recover for emotional injuries (Moore v. Freeman, 355 F.3d 558, 563 (6th Cir. 2004); Travis v. Gary Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 921 F.2d 108, 112 (7th Cir. 1990)).
- A number of other circuits, while not directly addressing the issue of whether emotional distress damages are available in FLSA retaliation claims, have nevertheless approved awards of emotional distress damages on those claims (Travers v. Flight Servs. & Sys., Inc., 808 F.3d 525, 530, 539–42 (1st Cir. 2015); Broadus v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 238 F.3d 990, 992 (8th Cir. 2001); Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997, 1011 (9th Cir. 1999)).
- In Travis, the Seventh Circuit relied on the FLSA damages provision's language "such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate" as support for the availability of emotional distress damages in addition to unpaid wages and liquidated damages (see Travis, 921 F.2d at 212; 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)).
- The district court and other district courts in the Fifth Circuit that have held emotional distress damages are not available to FLSA retaliation plaintiffs relied on the Fifth Circuit's holding in Dean v. American Security Insurance Co. that since emotional distress damages are not available under the ADEA, they are also unavailable under the FLSA (559 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1977)). However, the Dean decision is not useful in addressing an FLSA retaliation claim issue because Dean evaluated the FLSA before the statute was changed to allow for private FLSA retaliation suits.
The Fifth Circuit found that Pineda produced sufficient evidence for the jury to consider whether he was entitled to emotional distress damages as a result of JTCH's eviction of him and his wife from their residence and request for back rent, including:
- Marital strife.
- Sleepless nights.
- Anxiety over where his family would live.
Supporting its conclusion that a nonemployee spouse cannot bring an FLSA retaliation claim, the Fifth Circuit noted that:
- The FLSA's substantive retaliation provision only prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against an "employee" (29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)).
- A Title VII case in which the US Supreme Court applied the "zone of interests test" to determine who may bring a Title VII retaliation action claim is not relevant in the FLSA retaliation context because Title VII allows the broader "person claiming to be aggrieved" to bring a Title VII action (see Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170, 178 (2011); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)).
Practical Implications
In Pineda, the Fifth Circuit joins the Sixth and Seventh Circuits in expressly holding that emotional distress damages are available to plaintiffs pursuing FLSA retaliation claims. Employers in those circuits should be aware of the potential for their employees (but not spouses of those employees) to recover this type of damages and allow that to serve as additional incentive to not take retaliatory actions against employees who assert FLSA rights or pursue FLSA claims.
Interestingly, earlier in the same week, a different Fifth Circuit panel affirmed that Dean v. American Security Insurance Co.'s pre-FLSA amendment holding that "neither general damages [i.e., compensatory damages for pain and suffering] nor punitive damages are recoverable in private ADEA actions" remains good precedent. Ironically, that panel noted:
"Within this circuit, our district courts have reasonably inferred that Dean remains good law, and therefore forecloses pain and suffering and punitive damages under the FLSA. See, e.g., Douglas v. Mission Chevrolet, 757 F. Supp. 2d 637, 640 (W.D. Tex. 2010) ("Because of the Fifth Circuit’s expressed desire for remedies under the ADEA and the FLSA to be interpreted consistently, and because the Fifth Circuit has held that emotional distress damages and punitive damages are unavailable under the ADEA, this Court holds that emotional distress damages and punitive damages are unavailable in an FLSA anti-retaliation claim.")."
The Fifth Circuit likely will need to revisit its analysis of remedies under the ADEA, FMLA, and FLSA.