United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
JOSHUA LAUGHLIN, and GREG SCOTTO JUNIOR on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
JIM FISCHER, INC., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH, CHIEF JUDGE
Joshua Laughlin and Greg Scotto, Jr., allege that their
former employer, Defendant Jim Fischer, Inc., violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et
seq., and Wisconsin's wage laws, Wis.Stat. §
109.01, et seq., by, among other things, failing to
properly compensate them for hours worked in excess of forty
per week. Presently before the court is Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration of a portion of the court's
order denying-in-part and granting-in-part Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment. Specifically, Plaintiffs ask the
court to reconsider its conclusion that the overtime
compensation Fischer paid Plaintiffs did not violate Section
207(g)(2) of the FLSA and Wisconsin law. Also before the
court is Plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery that was
filed before the court ruled on Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motions
will be denied.
to reconsider denials of summary judgment are governed by
Rule 54(b), which provides that non-final orders “may
be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment
adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights
and liabilities.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Galvan v.
Norberg, 678 F.3d 581, 587 n.3 (7th Cir. 2012) (stating
“Rule 54(b) governs non-final orders and permits
revision at any time prior to the entry of final judgment,
thereby bestowing sweeping authority upon the district court
to reconsider a [summary judgment motion]”). “The
‘standard courts apply in reconsidering their decisions
is generally the same under both Rule 59(e) and Rule
54(b).'” Cheese Depot, Inc. v. Sirob Imports,
Inc., No. 14 C 1727, 2019 WL 1505399 at *1 (N.D. Ill.
Apr. 5, 2019) (quoting Morningware, Inc. v. Hearthware
Home Prods., Inc., No. 09 C 4348, 2011 WL 1376920, at *2
(N.D. Ill. Apr. 12, 2011)).
for reconsideration serve a very limited purpose in federal
civil litigation: “to correct manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d
246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting Keene Corp. v.
Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F.Supp. 656, 665-66
(N.D. Ill. 1976), aff'd 736 F.2d 388 (7th Cir.
1984)). “A ‘manifest error' is not
demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is
the ‘wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to
recognize controlling precedent.'” Oto v.
Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000)
(quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F.Supp. 1063, 1069
(N.D. Ill. 1997)). “Such motions are disfavored and
should be ‘rare.'” Acantha LLC v. DePuy
Orthopaedics Inc., No. 15-C-1257, 2018 WL 2290715, at *1
(E.D. Wis. May 19, 2018) (quoting Bank of Waunakee v.
Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th
Motion for Reconsideration
March 31, 2019, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Relevant to
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, the court denied
summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on the issue of
whether Fischer failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime in
accordance with the requirements of the FLSA. In reaching its
conclusion, the court relied on 29 U.S.C. § 207(g)(2)
and the regulations interpreting that provision. Section
No employer shall be deemed to have violated subsection (a)
by employing any employee for a workweek in excess of the
maximum workweek applicable to such employee under such
subsection if, pursuant to an agreement or understanding
arrived at between the employer and the employee before
performance of the work, the amount paid to the employee for
the number of hours worked by him in such workweek in excess
of the maximum workweek applicable to such employee under
. . .
(2) in the case of an employee performing two or more kinds
of work for which different hourly or piece rates have been
established, is computed at rates not less than one and
one-half times such bona fide rates applicable to the same
work when performed during nonovertime hours.
regulations interpreting this provision state that employees
who are paid on the basis of a piece rate for the work
performed during nonovertime hours or employees who perform
two or more different kinds of work for which different
straight time hourly rates are established may agree with
their employer in advance of the performance of the work that
they will be paid during overtime hours at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the hourly nonovertime rate for
the work being performed during the overtime hours.
See 29 C.F.R. §§ 778.418, 778.419.
court denied Plaintiffs' motion because there was a
factual issue as to whether an agreement was reached between
Plaintiffs and Fischer:
Fischer's employee handbook informed employees that
“[h]ours worked over forty-hours (40) per week will be
paid at time and one-half (1 ½) of the job
rate.” [Dkt] No. 83-5 at 3. As Fischer employees
received this handbook prior to their first time on a jobsite
and signed the handbook stating that they understood all of
its terms, it was permissible for Fischer to calculate
overtime premiums based on one and one-half times the rate
applicable to the specific type of work. That appears to be
what Fisher did here. If a bona fide ...