Starks v. Harris Company, Inc. et al
| Cindy R. Starks |
| Harris Company, Inc. and Prince A. Harris |
| 4:2012cv00473 |
| March 14, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - City |
| David D. Noce |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
121
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff Cindy R. Starks for attorneys' fees and expenses (Doc. 112 ) is sustained in part and denied in part. Defendants shall pay plaintiff $33,920.00 as attorneys' fees and $ 579.77 in expenses. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of defendants Harris Co. Inc., and Prince A. Harris for attorney fees (Doc. 113 ) is sustained in part and denied in part. Plaintiff shall pay defendants $1,500.00 as an attorney's fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants motion for leave to file a sealed document is sustained. (Doc. 114 .) Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 3/26/14. (KJS)
|
|
Filing
109
POST VERDICT MEMORANDUM AND FINDING - This action is before the court for further proceedings following the rendering of verdicts by the jury on January 27, 2014. The jury found that defendant Harris Company, Inc., failed to pay plaintiff Cindy R. S tarks required overtime pay, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). The jury awarded plaintiff the sum of $2,205.00 as compensatory damages on this claim. Relevant to the legal issue of the statute of limitation s, the jury also found that defendant either knew its conduct was prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct was prohibited by the Act. Congress has provided that an employer who violates § 20 7(a)(1) shall also pay to the employee additional liquidated damages in the amount of the actual damages determined by the court. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Congress has also provided that, if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that th e act or omission giving rise to [the action to recover unpaid overtime pay] was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, the cour t may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages 29 U.S.C. § 260. The court concludes that, while the factual issue of willfulness for limitations purposes differs from the issues of good faith and reasonable grounds in § 260, th e court is informed by the jury of the state of mind of defendant when violating §207(a)(1). The court finds and concludes from all the evidence in the case that defendant has not shown that it acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds for believing its actions did not violate the federal law regarding plaintiff's entitlement to overtime pay. Chao v. Barbeque Ventures, LLC, 547 F.3d 938, 941 (8th Cir. 2008); Jarrett v. ERC Properties, Inc., 211 F.3d 1078, 1084 (8th Cir. 2000). For these reasons, the court awards plaintiff liquidated damages in the sum of $2,205.00. The judgment of the court, issued herewith, includes both the compensatory damages found by the jury and the liquidated damages determined by the court. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 1/28/14. (KJS)
|
|
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the oral motion of plaintiff Cindy R. Starks to dismiss her sexual harassment claims is sustained. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of defendants Harris Co., Inc. and Prince A. Harris for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 40 ) with respect to plaintiff's sex discrimination claims under Title VII is sustained. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of defendants' for judgment on the pleadings with respect to plaintiff's Title VII claims against defendant Prince A. Harris (Doc. 40) is denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 12/20/2012; (DJO)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
