PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 18-1825 _____________ LINDA STONE, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Appellant v. TROY CONSTRUCTION, LLC _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 3-14-cv-0306) District Judge: Hon. James M. Munley _______________ Argued March 12, 2019 Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE, and ROTH, Circuit Judges. (Filed: August 20, 2019 ) _______________ Matthew D.Miller [ARGUED] Richard S. Swartz Justin L. Swidler Swartz Swidler 1101 Kings Highway North – Ste. 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Counsel for Appellant James N. Boudreau [ARGUED] Adam R. Roseman Greenberg Traurig 1717 Arch Street – Ste. 400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Michael Burnett Jacob E. Godard Greenberg Traurig 1000 Louisiana Street – Ste. 1700 Houston, TX 77002 Counsel for Appellee _______________ OPINION OF THE COURT _______________ JORDAN, Circuit Judge. Linda Stone sued Troy Construction Inc. (“Troy”), on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleging a willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). She claims that Troy paid local employees per diem compensation that should have been classified as wages and included in the regular rate of pay, which would in turn have 2 affected the calculation of overtime pay. The District Court was unpersuaded and granted summary judgment for Troy, holding that, as a matter of law, there had been no willful violation of the FLSA. Whether a violation is willful determines the length of the applicable statute of limitations. In light of its holding that there had been no willfulness in this case, the Court applied a two-year statute of limitations and concluded that Stone’s claims were time-barred. Because the Court, in effect, applied an incorrect standard in deciding the willfulness question, we will vacate and remand. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background 1 Troy builds and maintains oil and gas pipelines and compressor stations across the country, including in Pennsylvania, where Stone worked. During the relevant period, many of Troy’s employees had to travel long distances from their permanent residences to their Pennsylvania worksites, but Troy acknowledges that it also “often hired employees closer to [those] worksites[.]” (App. at 63.) We will refer to the long-distance travelers as “non- local employees” and the local commuters as “local employees.” When hiring a new employee, Troy required him or her to fill out a W-4 form for tax purposes, an I-9 immigration form to verify employment eligibility, and a 1 Summary judgment was granted for Troy on the issue of willfulness, so we view the facts and draw all reasonable inferences in Stone’s favor. Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc., 579 F.3d 285, 286 (3d Cir. 2009). 3 form of Troy’s own making to get background information about the employee (collectively, the “New Hire Forms”). 2 The New Hire Forms included a space for the employee to note his or her permanent address. Because non-local employees had to travel long distances to their worksites, Troy paid them a per diem to cover their travel costs. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals