United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Now
before the Court are Defendant Cobb-Vantress, Inc.'s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's
overtime claims (Doc. 16), to which Plaintiff Martha Cea
filed a Response in Opposition five days out of time (Doc.
21), and Cea's Second Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint (Doc. 22). On April 10, 2019, the Court
held a hearing on the Motions, and the parties presented oral
argument. The Court determined that even though Cea's
response to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was
filed out of time, the Court would still consider the merits
of her response. After oral argument concluded, the Court
ruled from the bench that the Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings was GRANTED, and the Motion for
Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint was
DENIED due to futility. The following Order
memorializes the Court's rulings and explains the reasons
for the decisions in greater detail. To the extent anything
in this Order conflicts with what was said from the bench,
this Order will control.
I.
BACKGROUND
Cea
filed this employment discrimination lawsuit in the Circuit
Court of Benton County, Arkansas, on November 26, 2018. (Doc.
3). Her former employer, Defendant Cobb-Vantress, removed the
case to this Court on February 7, 2019, due to the presence
of one or more federal questions in the Complaint. (Doc. 1).
Cobb-Vantress answered the Complaint on February 7 (Doc. 4)
and then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc.
8) on March 1. The motion for judgment on the pleadings
requested dismissal of Cea's overtime compensation
claims, due to an exemption that applies for
poultry/agricultural workers. Cea filed a response in
opposition to the motion, and then a few days later, on March
19, filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 14). The effect of
filing the Amended Complaint was that the motion for judgment
on the pleadings as to the original complaint was moot.
See Doc. 15.
On
March 20, Cobb-Vantress filed another Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings (Doc. 16) as to Cea's claims made in her
Amended Complaint, once again, with respect to Cea's
overtime compensation claims made pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act ("AMWA"). Cea filed an untimely response
to the Motion on April 8 (Doc. 21), which the Court,
nonetheless, decided to consider. Also on April 8, Cea filed
a Second Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.
(Doc. 22). The proposed second amended complaint contains the
overtime claims that Cobb-Vantress argues are subject to
dismissal in its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The
only substantive difference between the Amended Complaint and
the proposed second amended complaint is the addition of a
couple of sentences describing the nature of Cea's job
duties at Cobb-Vantress. Both the Amended Complaint and
proposed second amended complaint describe Cobb-Vantress as
follows:
Defendant Cobb is a foreign for-profit Corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Siloam
Springs, Arkansas. Cobb is a poultry research and development
company in the business of development, production and sale
of broiler breeder stock. Cobb operates a poultry hatchery in
Siloam Springs, Benton County, Arkansas.
(Doc. 14at1; Doc. 22-1 at1).
The
Amended Complaint and proposed second amended complaint also
describe Cea as having been "employed by Cobb as a
worker on the production line in the Siloam Springs
hatchery." (Doc. 14 at 1; Doc. 22-1 at 1).
The
only substantive difference between the Amended Complaint and
the proposed second amended complaint is in how both
documents describe Cea's job duties at Paragraph 8. The
Amended Complaint states at Paragraph 8:
Plaintiff's job duties included grading and vaccinating
baby chicks as they moved along a conveyor belt. The hatchery
is a factory-type setting. Thousands of eggs are hatched, and
the chicks are then vaccinated and graded, on a daily basis.
(Doc. 14 at 2). The proposed second amended complaint states
at Paragraph 8:
Plaintiff's job duties included grading and vaccinating
baby chicks as they moved along a conveyor belt.
Plaintiff's job duties also included janitorial and
cleaning services. Approximately half of Plaintiff's work
week was not related vaccinating [sic] or grading chicks but
rather to cleaning duties.
(Doc. 22-1 at 2).
In
every other respect, aside from the factual differences in
Paragraph 8, the Amended Complaint and the proposed second
amended complaint are identical. Clearly, Cea has added some
facts to Paragraph 8 in her proposed amended pleading in an
attempt to save her overtime claims from dismissal. As will
be explained ...