Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—OVERTIME—W.D. Tenn.: Lawncare workers advance claims involving cash payments for overtime hours, (May 1, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

The employer’s alleged practice was to pay them by check for the first 40 hours in a workweek, and then to pay cash at the same rate for overtime.

Largely denying the motions brought by the husband and wife owners of a lawncare company regarding the FLSA claims alleged by several former employees, a federal district court in Tennessee refused to decertify the collective action because one of the plaintiffs eventually achieved the position of operations manager, thus granting him some decision making authority, as the claims in this case did not cover the time period when the employee worked as an operations manager. Further, the husband and wife team that owned the company were found to be “employers” for purposes of the FLSA and could be held personally liable for the alleged violations committed during the relevant time period (Teran v. Lawn Enforcement, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-02338-JTF-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 30, 2025)).

On June 1, 2022, a former employee of a lawncare company filed this action pursuant to the FLSA on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. He alleged that the defendants willfully failed to pay overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. On June 8, an amended complaint was filed naming seven additional plaintiffs.

Checks, cash. The primary factual dispute between the parties centered on the employees’ allegations that the defendants were willfully involved in an illegal pay scheme wherein their standard practice was to pay the employees a regular hourly rate by check for the first 40 hours worked in a week and the same rate by cash for any overtime hours worked. The employees also alleged that defendants destroyed timecards after paying the employees.

Ownership. The lawncare company is co-owned by a husband and wife, with the husband retaining a 49 percent ownership interest while his wife has a 51 percent ownership interest. It was disputed whether the husband had a final say on any decisions made by the operations manager regarding the hiring and firing of employees. It was also disputed whether the wife held an administrative or essential role in the business.

Operations manager. One of the opt-in plaintiffs held the position of foreman from 2017 until March 2020. He was then promoted to operations manager, for which he was paid a salary and a commission for any sales made. Until 2022, he had the authority to hire employees. He was also responsible for disciplining employees, being the primary contact for scheduling and work-related calls, and speaking with clients on a regular basis. The husband and wife jointly supervised his managerial work and met with him each morning to discuss the upcoming workday.

Motions. Presently, the defendants sought to dismiss the former operations manager as a plaintiff on the grounds that he was an “employer” for purposes of the FLSA. Based on this argument, they also sought to implead him as a third-party defendant. Further, they contended that, because of his employment status, the employees could not show a strong likelihood that the operations manager was similarly situated to the other opt-in plaintiffs and thus the collective action should be decertified. There was also a motion to dismiss the claims against the husband and wife individually, arguing that they were not “employers” for FLSA purposes. Finally, the defendants moved to strike or dismiss the employees’ written consents as time-barred.

Conditional certification. First addressing the motion for summary judgment as to conditional certification, the court noted that the operations manager’s job responsibilities and compensation differed in that role from the other employees. However, nowhere in the amended complaint did the employees allege any FLSA claim that covered the time period when the plaintiff worked as an operations manager. As such, the court found the plaintiff to be similarly situated to the other employees and denied the motion to decertify the collection action.

Employer status. Next, the court considered the husband and wife’s motions for summary judgment based on their status as “employers” for purposes of the FLSA, as well as whether the operations manager would be considered an “employer” under the FLSA.

As to the operations manager, the court noted that he hired, disciplined, supervised and managed other employees. Although he did not set employee wages, he brought their salary requests to the husband. As such, he was an “employer” when he worked as an operations manager. However, because the FLSA claims did not cover this time period, the court found that his claims need not be dismissed, and the motion for summary judgment on this basis was denied.

With regards to the husband and wife, they contended that they did not have the requisite operational control over the company to be held individually liable. However, the record belied this contention.

The husband frequently exercised oversight and approval control over the operations manager’s decisions, observed the court. The wife also supervised the work of the operations manager, holding daily meetings with him to discuss upcoming tasks, while also occasionally handling employee complaints. She also processed, and later destroyed, timecards. Accordingly, the court determined the two were employers for FLSA purposes and were subject to personal liability, denying their motions for summary judgment on this basis.

Motion to strike. With regard to the defendants’ motion to strike the employees’ filed written consent forms, the court explained that these written notices of consent to opt-in were not pleadings and, as such, were not subject to a motion to strike.

Willfulness. Next, the defendants argued that a two-year—instead of a three-year—statute of limitations should apply to the claims because the employees failed to show willfulness. The defendants contended that their violations, if any existed, were not willful based on the fact that the wife would return the timecards of employees who complained of pay shortages and would occasionally write supplemental checks to address any discrepancies. The employees argued that the destruction of the timecards showed willfulness.

Because there was a genuine dispute of material fact on this issue, the court found the defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law and the issue of willfulness would proceed to trial, which in turn would determine the applicable statute of limitations.

Written consent to join. Turning to the matter of written consents, the court noted that all plaintiffs, save for two, worked for the defendants through mid-May 2022 and their collective action claims commenced on July 8, 2021. Therefore, their written consents were filed well within the three-year statutory period, presuming the alleged violations were willful. If not willful, then these claims would be time-barred.

One of the other two employees was claiming back pay for years 2019 to 2021. However, his last working week was not mentioned by either party and thus the court could not determine whether his claims fell within the statute of limitations. The other employee was the one time operations manager, who was classified as non-exempt in that role, and thus his claims were barred under either statute of limitations. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was granted with regard to the operations manager but denied as to the other employees.

Motion to implead. Finally, as to the motion to implead the operations manager as a third-party defendant, the court explained that he was a party in this case and the motion to implead was inappropriate under FRCP 14 and was thus denied.

The case is No. 2:22-cv-02338-JTF-tmp.

Judge: Fowlkes, J. Jr.

Attorneys: Hannah Strong (The Crone Law Firm) for Alfredo Teran. John Joseph Leatherwood (Jackson Shields Yeiser Holt Owen & Bryant) for Lawn Enforcement Inc.

Companies: Lawn Enforcement Inc.

Cases: WageHour ClassActions Overtime CoverageLiability Procedure TennesseeNews