The Fourth Circuit recently recognized that an employer’s failure to post the required notice of rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) can extend (or “toll”) an aggrieved employee’s statute of limitations. The case involves an individual from the Philippines, Christina Cruz, who came to the United States to work as a domestic employee for defendants from 2002 until 2008. She alleges that she worked seven days a week for 18 hours per day, and was forced to remain on call all night caring for a family of eight. She received wages of only $8 to $15 per day during this period. According to Cruz, she was never permitted to take a day off or to visit her family, her passport was confiscated upon her arrival, and she was threatened with adverse immigration action if she tried to leave. The case is Cruz v. Maypa, No. 13-2363 (4th Cir. Dec 1, 2014).
Ms. Cruz filed her lawsuit against defendants in 2013, or approximately five years after her work ended, alleging violations of the FLSA, among other things. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed her claims as time barred, even after applying a three-year statute of limitations for willful violations of the FLSA (as opposed to the two-year limitation period). When Cruz appealed, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded in a strongly worded opinion, which called the employers’ arguments against equitable tolling “offensive.”
Ms. Cruz alleged that no FLSA poster was on display at defendants’ home, so the statute of limitations should be tolled since Cruz was not put on notice of her rights under the FLSA. Cruz asked the Court to extend the reasoning of cases holding that an employee’s statute of limitations under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) may be tolled due to the employer’s failure to post statutory notice. Defendants took the position that notice would have been futile in this case because the FLSA poster provided by the Wage and Hour Division is not available in Cruz’s native language (Tagalog), so Cruz would not have understood it anyway. The Court disagreed, stating that defendants’ arguments would lead to an absurd result where non-English speaking employees would be afforded fewer protections under the FLSA. The Court extended the ADEA’s reasoning to FLSA actions because the notice requirements under both Acts are nearly identical.
Equitable tolling of an expired statute of limitations has historically been available to FLSA plaintiffs only in the most egregious circumstances. Prior to the Court’s ruling in Cruz, employers had strong arguments that equitable tolling should not apply in the Fourth Circuit unless an employer committed some type of affirmative misconduct in addition to failing to post the FLSA poster, and that a failure to post alone was not enough to justify tolling. However, after this decision in Cruz, the courts will likely accept a plaintiff’s equitable tolling arguments when the workplace has no FLSA poster, even if no other affirmative misconduct exists.
Although the allegations made by the plaintiff in the present case are quite egregious, the Court did not reference these facts in deciding whether to toll the statutory period. Instead, the Court seemed to rely strictly on policy justifications, stating that “absent a tolling rule, employers would have no incentive to post notice since they could hide the fact of their violations from employees until any relevant claims expired.”
Once a court determines that equitable tolling is appropriate, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the date the employee retains an attorney or somehow obtains actual knowledge of her rights under the FLSA. Accordingly, an employer’s failure to post the FLSA poster could provide both past and present employees with a potentially limitless opportunity to sue their employers for FLSA violations.
Fill out the form and we’ll respond as soon as possible.
Posted on Google
AnonymousTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
I was facing a charge of Reckless Driving for speeding on I66 at midnight. This is considered a Class 1 Misdemeanor in the state of Virginia. Having something like Reckless Driving on your record is on par with having a DUI. This charge also carries a chance for jail time (up to a year). I was incredibly scared because I had never faced such a charge. And looking into Virginia Law, my speed exceeded 90mph, which is quite serious. I retained Dave Albo to help me with this case. Since my record was clean, Dave had advised I do the following before my trial. * Take a DMV Driver's Improvement Course * Take a Behavior Modification Course * Do 100 hours of community service * Print my DMV Record one week before the trial On the day of my trial, Dave got my Reckless Driving charge REDUCED to a regular Speeding charge. This was the absolute best case scenario for me. No criminal record. No jail time. No suspension of license. I did receive 6 demerit points and had to pay a fine of $250 (plus court fees). But that's a slap on the wrist, compared to what I could have been facing. Thank you Dave Albo for helping me through this ordeal!Posted on Google
TomDave albo it's a fantastic lawyer. He has helped me twice now with great results both times with minor traffic tickets. I would recommend him to anybody including my family. He has great ethics and honesty which is what I look for in a lawyer .Posted on Google
kendall carpenterDave was my attorney recently for a car accident where I needed someone to represent me in court. After exchanging all necessary information he reassured me when the court date came that there wouldn’t be anything to worry about. On the day of court a couple problems arose and Dave was able to rectify them quickly, told me everything I need to say if needed and when it was all over he got my violation reduced significantly. I hope to never go to court again but if I do I will being calling Dave again.Posted on Google
Amanda StallardRetaining the services of Mr. Albo for traffic court was probably the best decision I made. He is very responsive to emails, knowledgeable, and punctual. He provided excellent advice that eased the panic of having to go to the court house and stand before a judge. I am very happy with the outcome of my visit to traffic court and highly recommend Dave Albo.Posted on Google
Mark WestMr Albo was very professional and I was pleased with the outcome.Posted on Google
MDavid was incredible to work with from clear communication and next steps. To showing up to traffic court early to walk over all steps, making case in court as experienced/intelligent/well spoken lawyer. Lastly, he even followed after case in writing to confirm the outcome outlining everything that happened in lamen terms (in my case the best outcome we could ask for). I’m so appreciative to David.Posted on Google
mitquinn88Absolutely top notch representation. Can't thank Dave enough for his knowledge and expertise.Posted on Google
G RThanks to Dave Albo for a fantastic job representing me and ensuring the best possible outcome for my case. I highly recommend him - you will be in good hands for sure. From start to finish he provided expert counsel and kept me well informed. He simply could not have done a better job.Posted on Google
Hope CarriganI am THRILLED with the outcome of my case, all thanks to Attorney Albo's superb expertise, excellent advice & sharp negotiating skills! I am extremely relieved and grateful; I highly recommend retaining his services. Well beyond worth it!!Posted on Google
Doug DamronDave did a great job representing me for my traffic court infraction! I wanted the best and his name came up as I searched for an attorney. Highly recommend him on all levels including a successful outcome to my case.
