William A and Ann M. Jacobs - Page 13




                                       - 13 -                                         
          bifurcated the damages and liability portions of the trial4                 
          and, therefore, claim no discovery on personal injuries was                 
          appropriate.  This reasoning is unsatisfactory because it                   
          ignores the fact that the bifurcation happened more than 2                  
          years after the amended complaint was filed without reference               
          to injury or illness.                                                       
                Moreover, the settlement terms make it unlikely that the              
          liquidated damages payments were made to compensate specific                
          personal injuries or sicknesses.  All plaintiffs in Kinnett                 
          received a liquidated damages settlement amount equal to their              
          back wages payment.  The amounts paid were paid to each                     
          plaintiff in the action without reference to the severity or                
          even existence of injury.                                                   
                Finally, petitioners filed their cause of action under a              
          Federal act that does not provide for personal injury                       
          compensation.  The FLSA was enacted to establish minimum wages              
          and maximum hours for employees.  See Brooklyn Sav. Bank v.                 
          O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 707 (1945).  According to 29 U.S.C.                   
          section 216(b) (1994), the only relief available under the FLSA             
          for excessive hours worked is the payment of back wages and                 
          payment of liquidated damages, which are intended to compensate             
          the employee for damages too obscure or difficult to estimate               


               4 The pretrial order does not explain why the damage and               
          liability portions of the trial were bifurcated.                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011