Elliott v. JBM Patrol and Protection

Background

Lee Elliott worked for JBM Patrol and Protection, a private security company, beginning in 2014. He later became a scheduler and operations manager and, in 2019, took on payroll and human-resources duties. Elliott alleged that JBM’s then-president, Randy Olson, instructed him not to record more than 40 hours per week while requiring him to work until the work was finished. Elliott said he worked unpaid overtime, complained about it, and later contacted JBM’s corporate office. The chief financial officer instructed him to record all hours and be paid for all work, but Elliott alleged that JBM did not compensate him fully at that time.

Elliott continued to work more than 40 hours per week. In April 2020, he emailed Jesse Makela that he would no longer work overtime. Elliott alleged that, in context, he meant he would no longer perform uncompensated work. JBM fired him the next day. Afterward, Makela allegedly agreed that Elliott’s workload required overtime and said JBM fired him for working overtime. JBM later paid Elliott for 92 overtime hours, but Elliott claimed that payment did not cover all the overtime he had accumulated. Elliott also sent JBM a written request for the reason for his termination, which he alleged JBM did not answer.

Elliott’s amended complaint asserted claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. JBM moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Rulings on the overtime and retaliation claims

The court dismissed the portions of Elliott’s Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act wrongful-discharge claim and federal Fair Labor Standards Act retaliation claim that relied on his interactions with Olson in spring 2019. The court reasoned that Olson no longer worked for JBM when Elliott was fired in April 2020, other JBM leaders had instructed Elliott to record his hours, and Elliott had not alleged how the 2019 events caused the later termination.

The court denied JBM’s motion as to the portions of those claims based on April 2020 conduct. Accepting Elliott’s allegations as true and viewing them favorably to him, the court found that his email stating that he would no longer work overtime could plausibly have meant that he would no longer work without pay, and that the email could be connected to his termination the next day.

The court also denied JBM’s motion as to Elliott’s federal Fair Labor Standards Act unpaid-overtime claim. The court explained that such claims ordinarily have a two-year limitations period, but the period can extend to three years if the employer’s violation was willful. The court found that Elliott sufficiently alleged willfulness based on Olson’s instruction, as JBM’s president, that Elliott work overtime without recording it. The court also considered Elliott’s allegation that JBM paid him for 92 hours but did not fully satisfy his request for payment.

Minnesota Whistleblower Act claims

The court rejected the portion of Elliott’s Minnesota Whistleblower Act claim based on his 2019 report to JBM management because he did not adequately allege a causal connection between that report and his termination approximately a year later.

The court denied JBM’s motion as to Elliott’s claims based on April 2020 conduct. It held that, for purposes of the motion, Elliott’s email could qualify as a report under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act because he alleged that JBM planned to violate overtime laws by not paying him. The court also found that Elliott sufficiently alleged that he refused an order to work uncompensated overtime and that JBM knew he refused because he believed the conduct violated the law.

Notice of termination

The court denied JBM’s motion as to Elliott’s claim concerning notice of termination. Minnesota law allows an involuntarily terminated employee to request the reason for termination in writing within 15 working days, and requires the employer to respond within 10 working days. Elliott alleged that he made a timely written request on April 24, 2020, and that JBM did not respond. The court noted that JBM did not dispute the alleged failure to respond.

Disposition

The court ordered that JBM Patrol and Protection’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The opinion did not finally decide whether Elliott would prevail on the claims that remained.