Firm News

A decision has been made for Danielle Crane and Nicholas Bobb’s case, Jones v. Producers Service Corp. (Case No. 23-3247, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit).

In the case of Jones v. Producers Service Corporation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed a question regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case involved oilfield technicians who sued their employer, Producers Service Corporation (PSC), for unpaid overtime compensation. PSC argued that it complied with the FLSA by implementing a Belo plan, which allows for fixed salaries for employees with fluctuating work hours.

The district court had granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling that PSC failed to establish that the technicians' job duties necessitated irregular hours as required by the Belo plan exception. However, the appeals court found that there was a genuine dispute of fact regarding whether the irregular hours were necessitated by the technicians' job duties or by fluctuations in demand for PSC's services.

The court analyzed various factors, including the nature of the technicians' work, industry practices, and evidence provided by PSC regarding fluctuations in demand. Ultimately, the court concluded that PSC had presented enough evidence to warrant further proceedings, and therefore, the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs was reversed, and the case was remanded for further consideration.

In summary, the appeals court reversed the district court's decision, affirming that there was a genuine dispute regarding whether the technicians' job duties necessitated irregular hours. Therefore, the case was sent back for further proceedings.

In the case of Jones v. Producers Service Corporation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed a question regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case involved oilfield technicians who sued their employer, Producers Service Corporation (PSC), for unpaid overtime compensation. PSC argued that it complied with the FLSA by implementing a Belo plan, which allows for fixed salaries for employees with fluctuating work hours.

The district court had granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling that PSC failed to establish that the technicians' job duties necessitated irregular hours as required by the Belo plan exception. However, the appeals court found that there was a genuine dispute of fact regarding whether the irregular hours were necessitated by the technicians' job duties or by fluctuations in demand for PSC's services.

The court analyzed various factors, including the nature of the technicians' work, industry practices, and evidence provided by PSC regarding fluctuations in demand. Ultimately, the court concluded that PSC had presented enough evidence to warrant further proceedings, and therefore, the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs was reversed, and the case was remanded for further consideration.

In summary, the appeals court reversed the district court's decision, affirming that there was a genuine dispute regarding whether the technicians' job duties necessitated irregular hours. Therefore, the case was sent back for further proceedings.