Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—11th Cir.: Court affirms jury verdict that employer’s FLSA violations were negligent, not willful, (May 22, 2025)

By Robert Margolis, J.D.

FLSA claims have a two-year limitations period, unless the violations are “willful,” in which case the limitations period is extended to three years.

A jury was entitled to weigh conflicting evidence as to whether Pooches of Largo, Inc. hired a former employee as a salaried certified veterinary technician or an hourly kennel technician, and to find that the employer’s failure to abide by the FLSA’s minimum wage requirement was negligent, not willful, the Eleventh Circuit held in an unpublished opinion. The court affirmed a jury verdict for the employer on the FLSA claim, as well as affirming the trial court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of an FLSA claim on limitations grounds, and summary judgment dismissal of her claim for violation of the Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA) (Moore v. Pooches of Largo, Inc., No. 23-13568 (11th Cir. May 20, 2025, unpublished)).

The employee alleged she applied to the employer for a job advertised as a certified veterinary technician position, having a salary of $35,000. She worked for about three weeks, she claimed, about 85 hours in total. On August 31, 2018, she was paid $184 for 24 hours of that work, or $8.45 per hour. She immediately complained via text message to her supervisor about the pay discrepancy, threatened to hire an attorney, and was terminated later that day, shortly after sending the text. When a lawyer sent a demand letter on her behalf about a month later, the employer responded that she was hired as a part-time kennel technician, it and produced job listings to that effect and a second pay stub dated September 14, 2018.

Lawsuit. The employee filed suit on September 16, 2020. Her second amended complaint included claims under the FLSA for retaliation and violation of the minimum wage requirements, a claim under the FMWA for not paying minimum wage, and various state law torts. After some of her claims were dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and others on summary judgment, the case went to trial on the FLSA claims and a fraud claim. The jury found for the employer.

FLSA limitations. The court had dismissed certain of the FLSA claims on statute of limitations grounds because she filed her lawsuit more than two years after the August 31, 2018 date on which she received her paycheck and was terminated. The employee had argued that the claim accrued later in 2018, when she received her second paycheck, or in 2020 when a separate defamation lawsuit she had filed against the employer was dismissed. The court rejected both arguments.

FLSA claims have a two-year limitations period, unless the violations were “willful,” in which case the limitations period is extended to three years. The employee filed her lawsuit more than two years after she received her paycheck and was terminated, which is the proper accrual date. She did not contest that August 31, 2018 was her final day of employment. To the extent she on appeal asserted that September 14, 2018, should be the accrual date, she did not argue it below and waived it (and her complaint, filed September 16, 2020, still would have missed that date by two days). Further, because the jury ultimately found that the violations were not willful, dismissal under the two-year limitations period was proper, the appellate court held.

FLSA willfulness. At trial on the FLSA claims, the jury held that the employee failed to establish any violation was willful. A willfulness finding requires proof that the employer either knew of, or showed reckless disregard for, the matter of whether it was violating the statute. There was conflicting evidence on the employer’s mental state. One co-worker testified that the employee was hired as a kennel technician and was appropriately compensated for that position. The employer’s owner testified it is possible that onboarding errors were made, but there was no evidence of knowing or reckless disregard of the employer’s legal obligations. Given this, the jury was entitled to weigh the evidence and the witnesses’ credibility and find that the employer acted negligently, not willfully, the appellate court held.

FMWA. The court had granted summary judgment to the employer on the FMWA claim, finding that the employee failed to establish she met the statute’s notice requirements, including that any notice identify the minimum wage to which the employee claims entitlement, the actual or estimated work dates and hours, and the total amount of unpaid wages. While the demand letter from the employee’s attorney referenced a promised $35,000 salary, it did not include any of the above-described required details.

Civil theft, conversion. The district court had dismissed these state-law claims, which were based on the theory that, because the employer withheld wages it should have paid, it effectively stole or converted those funds. The employee’s theory was legally untenable, because, under Florida law, a simple debt that can be discharged by payment of money cannot generally form the basis of a claim for theft or conversion. That the employee was promised a salary raised, at best, a claim for breach of contract, not either of these civil torts, the court found.

The case is No. 23-13568.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: Melanie Moore, pro se. Matthew Seth Sarelson (Dhillon Law Group) for Pooches of Largo, Inc.

Companies: Pooches of Largo, Inc.

Cases: WageHour Procedure RemediesDamages MinimumWage StateLawClaims AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews