In the case of Henderson v. Pieratt’s, Inc., Herman Henderson filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Pieratt’s, for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act (KWHA). Henderson alleged that he did not receive any additional compensation for working more than 40 hours per week.
Henderson was a regular employee at Pieratt’s Warehouse and was later promoted to the position of delivery crew chief. Pieratt’s implemented a compensation scheme for delivery personnel that included an hourly rate, commission payments, and bonuses. However, Henderson claimed that he did not receive overtime compensation as required. Pieratt’s scheme did not explicitly address overtime payment for crew chiefs.
Both Henderson and Pieratt’s had filed motions for partial summary judgment. Pieratt’s sought partial summary judgment on the issue of liability whereas Henderson sought partial summary judgment on the issue of wage liability under FLSA and KWHA.
The court denied both motions for partial summary judgment and decided that there were still disputes of material facts that needed to be resolved at trial. The denial indicated that neither side was entitled to judgment at this stage. The case proceeded to trial to determine the issues and appropriate remedies for the alleged violations.
The final ruling of the case is undetermined.
Key lessons from this case:
- Employers should clearly define and communicate their compensation policies, including how overtime is calculated and paid to employees.
- Compensation schemes should explicitly address overtime payment for different positions, including roles such as crew chiefs or supervisors, to avoid potential violations of overtime laws.
- Lawsuits involving overtime disputes may proceed to trial when genuine disputes of material facts exist, indicating that a judgment as a matter of law is not appropriate.
If you want to know more about overtime regulations, read our guide on Kentucky Overtime Laws.
