Santonias Bailey v. TitleMax of Georgia, Inc.
2015 WL 178346, 776 F.3d 797, 23 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1733 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer who knew or had reason to know that an employee was underreporting work hours cannot use equitable defenses based on the employee's underreporting, such as unclean hands or in pari delicto, to completely bar the employee's claim for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Facts:
- Santonias Bailey worked as an employee for TitleMax of Georgia.
- Bailey's supervisor informed him that TitleMax did not pay for overtime and that he would be required to work 'off the clock'.
- At his supervisor's direction, Bailey regularly clocked in later and clocked out earlier than the hours he actually worked.
- Bailey's supervisor also personally edited Bailey's time records to decrease his reported work hours, for example, by changing his clock-out time or adding un-taken lunch breaks.
- TitleMax had official policies requiring accurate time reporting and providing channels, including an anonymous hotline, for employees to report problems.
- Bailey was aware of these policies but did not use the reporting channels to complain about his supervisor's actions.
Procedural Posture:
- Santonias Bailey sued TitleMax of Georgia in the U.S. District Court for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
- TitleMax moved for summary judgment, arguing Bailey's claim was barred by the equitable defenses of 'unclean hands' and 'in pari delicto' due to his own participation in underreporting his hours.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of TitleMax.
- Bailey, as the appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, with TitleMax as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can an employer who knows its employee is underreporting hours assert equitable defenses based on that conduct to completely bar the employee's Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim for unpaid overtime?
Opinions:
Majority - Martin, Circuit Judge
No. An employer cannot invoke equitable defenses based on an employee's underreporting of hours to bar an FLSA claim when the employer knew or had reason to know about the underreporting. The primary purpose of the FLSA is to protect employees from the consequences of unequal bargaining power, and allowing this defense would neuter that purpose by permitting employers to pressure employees into underreporting and then blame them for it. The supervisor's actions—both instructing Bailey to work off the clock and personally altering his time records—imputed knowledge of the unpaid overtime to TitleMax. The court rejected TitleMax's attempt to use equitable defenses as a distinction without a difference from prior cases like Allen and Brennan, where employers unsuccessfully argued they had no knowledge of underreporting that their supervisors encouraged. Unlike in Brumbelow, where the employee acted alone, the supervisor's direct involvement here is the key fact imputing knowledge to the employer and precluding such defenses.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens employee protections under the FLSA by limiting an employer's ability to use an employee's own misconduct as a shield against liability when the employer is complicit in that misconduct. It clarifies that a supervisor's knowledge and actions are imputed to the employer, preventing the company from simultaneously benefiting from forced underreporting while disclaiming responsibility. The ruling prevents employers from creating a 'catch-22' for employees and reinforces that the FLSA's protective goals generally override common law equitable defenses that would undermine the statutory scheme.
