Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge.
The Court conducted a bench trial in this action on January 30, 2018. Plaintiffs Brian Weil and Melissa Fulk (collectively "
In their initial Complaint, [
[
[
The parties then filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, [
Following decertification, Mr. Weil and Ms. Fulk proceeded with their claims individually. Remaining for resolution at trial, therefore, were the following claims:
Metal Technologies is an automobile parts manufacturer located in Bloomfield, Indiana. Manufacturing employees work one of three shifts: first shift, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.; second shift, from 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.; or third shift, from 11:00 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. The shifts overlap by 30 minutes, and during that overlapping time, employees are relieved of their duties by the next shift's employees.
Ms. Fulk worked for Metal Technologies from August 4, 2014 through December 31, 2014, when she voluntarily resigned her employment. Mr. Weil worked for Metal Technologies from November 5, 2014 through December 8, 2014, when his employment was involuntarily terminated.
Pursuant to a wage deduction form that it distributed to its employees, from January 20, 2013 through April 10, 2016, Metal Technologies deducted wages from employees who chose to rent work clothing. Metal Technologies has conceded, and the Court has already determined as a matter of law, that the wage deduction form did not meet the requirements of Ind. Code § 22-2-6-2, and that Metal Technologies is liable for having improperly deducted wages pursuant to that form. Under the IWPS, the Plaintiff class is due those unpaid wages.
Beginning on April 11, 2016, Metal Technologies distributed a new version of the wage deduction form, still applying to voluntary deductions taken from employees' wages for the purpose of renting work clothing. That form included language stating that the wage assignment could be revoked at any time by the employee upon written notice to Metal Technologies, and it included a line for the employee's signature. Clothing rental is not required for Metal Technologies' employees, and employees are free to wear their own personal clothing on the job. Metal Technologies does not own the clothing rented by employees — rather, it contracts with an external vendor. Metal Technologies pays half of the rental cost, and deductions taken from employees cover the other half paid to the vendor. At the end of their employment, employees are required to return the rented clothing, or its full purchase price is deducted from their wages.
Mr. Weil received a paycheck dated December 12, 2014, for the pay period covering December 1 through December 7, 2014. A $63.00 deduction notated as "OF" was taken from that paycheck. That deduction was taken for what Metal Technologies identified at trial as an "Obama Fee." Kirbie Conrad, Metal Technologies' Human Resources Manager, directed the deduction, based on vague direction from an insurer that it was for a fee pursuant to the Affordable Care Act. The Court credits Ms. Conrad's testimony that she believed the deduction to have been properly taken pursuant to the ACA.
Metal Technologies uses an electronic time clock to record the time that each employee clocks in and out. Ms. Conrad orally informs employees at the beginning of their employment that if they work beyond their scheduled shift time, they should complete an "overtime authorization form" in order to be paid for that time. Ms. Conrad is also responsible for administering Metal Technologies' payroll,
Ms. Fulk was employed by Metal Technologies from August 4, 2014 through December 31, 2014, working on the third shift. Ms. Fulk's time records reflect that she often clocked in a short time before her shift's 11:00 p.m. start time, with her clock-ins ranging from 10:10 p.m. to 10:56 p.m. Those records also reflect that Ms. Fulk occasionally clocked out shortly after her shift's 7:30 a.m. weekday end time. On weekdays, when employees were required to take a 30 minute unpaid meal break, Ms. Fulk sometimes clocked out for meal breaks that lasted fewer than 30 minutes, or she did not clock out at all. Ms. Fulk submitted overtime authorization forms for extra minutes or hours worked on August 4, 2014; October 4, 2014; October 15, 2014; October 17, 2014; and December 20, 2014.
While this issue was vigorously disputed by the parties at trial, the Court concludes that, as to Ms. Fulk's pre- and post-shift clocked-in time, as well as missed or shortened meal breaks, Ms. Fulk did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she was performing work during those periods, or that if she was, Metal Technologies should have known it.
As to the pre-shift time, the evidence presented at trial does not establish that Ms. Fulk was performing work while clocked in. The Court credits the testimony of Ms. Conrad and supervisors Travis Clagg and Kyle Pollock that because shifts overlapped, there was no reason for production employees to report prior to the start of their shifts. Ms. Conrad, Mr. Clagg, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Weil, and Ms. Fulk all testified that each shift commenced with a short meeting in the breakroom for all shift employees, and the Court credits that testimony. The majority of Ms. Fulk's time-clock records indicate an initial clock-in from the breakroom, notated as "Indirect" and "Mtg" (for meeting) on the Shop-Trak time and attendance records, followed by a subsequent clock-in from the "Work Center," usually between 11:05 and 11:10 p.m. This is consistent with Ms. Fulk clocking in from the breakroom, attending the pre-shift meeting, and moving to her work station after the meeting concluded. It is not consistent with Ms. Fulk heading straight to her work station to begin work early.
The Court does not credit Ms. Fulk's testimony that during the last month (or so) of her employment (from either the end of November or the beginning of December 2014) she became an "assistant cell lead" and was required to attend pre-shift meetings once or twice per week. Ms. Conrad, Mr. Clagg, and Mr. Pollock all testified that there was no "assistant cell lead" position at Metal Technologies, and that the meetings described by Ms. Fulk never occurred. And Ms. Fulk's time records for the relevant period do not corroborate her memory of the meetings having occurred at 10:30 p.m. once or twice per week. She clocked in at precisely 11:00 p.m. from November 15 through November 30, 2014.
Regarding her post-shift time, on ten occasions during her employment, Ms. Fulk clocked out between one and eight minutes after her scheduled shift end time. As described above, the Court credits the testimony of Ms. Conrad, Mr. Clagg, and Mr. Pollock that employees were relieved of their duties by the incoming shift's employees. Therefore, absent special circumstances, the Court concludes that Ms. Fulk would have been relieved by the next shift and would not have been required to work beyond the end of her scheduled shift time. If special circumstances did require her to continue working, Ms. Fulk was aware of Metal Technologies' use of overtime authorization forms to report additional time worked. Indeed, she used this form on several occasions to report both large and small increments of overtime performed at the request of supervisors, including 15 minutes spent on clean-up duties. She did not submit overtime authorization forms for any of these ten late clock-outs.
As to meal breaks, the Court credits the testimony of Mr. Clagg and Mr. Pollock that during the relevant time period, all shift employees took their meal breaks at roughly the same time, and that during those meal breaks, the machinery would shut down and production would cease. The Court does not credit Ms. Fulk's contrary testimony. And Ms. Fulk did not testify as to any non-production work activities that she performed or was asked to perform during meal breaks. The Court also credits Mr. Pollock's testimony that employees knew that their 30-minute meal breaks would be automatically deducted from their pay, and as a result, employees would sometimes simply skip clocking out. The evidence presented, therefore, does not establish that Ms. Fulk worked through her meal breaks on days when she did not clock out.
Ms. Fulk has established, however, that on several occasions, she was clocked in and performing work during time for which she did not receive compensation. While she was paid for some of her clocked-in time on these days, her time entries were shortened for unexplained reasons on her payroll calculations. When asked to explain why minutes were taken off of these time entries, Ms. Conrad could not, stating only that she paid employees based on their scheduled shift times. Ms. Conrad's statement provides no explanation as to why these particular time entries would have been shortened, however, because on all of these days, Ms. Fulk's time entries do not at all correspond to a regular shift period. And on all of these occasions, she was not in fact paid based on her scheduled shift time or the time reflected on her time records. The Court details those occurrences below:
The Court credits Ms. Fulk's testimony that she was performing work during these times, and concludes that she was not compensated for the time periods indicated above.
On four occasions, Mr. Weil clocked out between four and nine minutes after his scheduled shift end. And on four occasions, Mr. Weil clocked out for a meal break that lasted fewer than thirty minutes. The Court concludes that Mr. Weil has not established that he was performing work during these periods of time.
Regarding the late clock-outs, Mr. Weil did not testify that he remembered ever working beyond his scheduled shift time, or that he was ever asked to work beyond his scheduled shift time. As the Court concluded above, employees were relieved of their duties by the incoming shift's employees during a 30-minute period of overlap, so under ordinary circumstances, an employee would not be required or expected to work beyond his scheduled shift. Mr. Weil submitted one overtime authorization form to report an hour of overtime spent doing "paperwork," but he did not submit a form for any of the time indicated by his timeclock entries on the days in question.
As to the meal breaks lasting fewer than 30 minutes, Mr. Weil did not establish that he was performing work during those time periods. Mr. Weil did not testify as to any work activities that he performed or was asked to perform during his meal breaks. And as the Court described above, during the relevant time period, all shift employees took their meal breaks at the same time, at which point the machinery would shut down and production would cease.
But, as with Ms. Fulk, the Court concludes that on one occasion, Mr. Weil was clocked in and performing work for which he did not receive compensation. Mr. Weil clocked in on December 9, 2014 at 11:00 p.m. and clocked out on December 10, 2014 at 3:49 a.m. After deducting a 30-minute meal break, Mr. Weil was clocked in for 4.32 hours. His pay record for that pay period indicates that he was only paid for 4.25 hours, leaving .07 hours uncompensated.
Regarding clothing rental wage deductions taken between January 20, 2013 and April 10, 2016, two issues remained for resolution at trial: the amount of damages for the claims raised by the Plaintiff class, and Mr. Weil's individual clothing deduction claim.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certified the following Plaintiff class:
Indiana Code Section 22-2-6-2 governs the requirements for the assignment of wages. Section 22-2-6-2(a) requires that the assignment be (1) in writing; (2) signed by the employee personally; (3) by its terms revocable at any time by the employee upon written notice to the employer; and (4) agreed to in writing by the employer. Ind. Code § 22-2-6-2(a)(1). Subsection (a) also requires that the assignment be made for a purpose enumerated in subsection (b). Ind. Code § 22-2-6-2(a)(3). As to current employees and those who voluntarily terminated their employment, the IWPS requires that "every person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association, their trustees, lessees, or receivers appointed by any court, doing business in Indiana, shall pay each employee at least semimonthly or biweekly, if requested, the amount due the employee." Ind. Code § 22-2-5-1(a).
The Plaintiff class alleges, and the Court has already determined as a matter of law, that Metal Technologies impermissibly deducted wages from the class members in violation of Indiana Code Section 22-2-6-2. At trial, the parties stipulated to the damages that Metal Technologies would pay pursuant to that statute and the IWPS. The Court accepts those stipulations, with one modification. Plaintiff Brian Weil appears to be included in the parties' stipulated damages as to this claim, with his wage deductions listed as amounting to $43.10. [See
Therefore, the Court subtracts $43.10 from the $31,093.96 overall total of wage deductions stipulated by the parties involving the Plaintiff class, leaving $31,050.86 of improper wage deductions. The parties stipulated to the trebling of those damages, amounting to $93,152.58.
The Court, therefore, concludes that the Plaintiff class is owed
At trial, Metal Technologies conceded liability for Mr. Weil's clothing rental wage deduction claim. The parties stipulated that a total of $43.10 was improperly taken from Mr. Weil's wages, and that his damages should be treble this amount. The Court therefore concludes that Mr. Weil is owed
As the Court described above, after distributing an amended wage deduction form, Metal Technologies continued taking wage deductions from employees who opted to rent work clothing. The Plaintiff class raises a claim that those deductions still did not meet the requirements of Indiana Code Section 22-2-6-2 and were therefore improper. Subsection (a) requires that the assignment be made for a purpose enumerated in subsection (b). Ind. Code § 22-2-6-2(a)(3). Prior to July 1, 2015, subsection (b) listed 13 permissible deduction purposes, none of which included the purchase or rental of uniforms. The amended version of the statute, in effect from July 1, 2015, adds several permissible purposes, including "[t]he purchase of uniforms and equipment necessary to fulfill the duties of employment...." Ind. Code § 22-2-6-2(b)(14).
The Court concludes that the wage deductions taken for clothing rental do not fall within one of the permissible purposes enumerated by Ind. Code § 22-2-6-2(b)(14). While the statute permits deductions for the "purchase" of uniforms, clothing rental is not included among the enumerated deduction purposes. Metal Technologies argues that the term "purchase" simply means to acquire something by paying money, and to "purchase" an item does not imply ultimate ownership of the item. Therefore, Metal Technologies argues, the terms rental and purchase are synonymous in the statute (or rental is subsumed within the term purchase), because renting also involves acquiring something by paying money.
To state it mildly, Metal Technologies' reading of the term "purchase" as being synonymous with or inclusive of "rental" strains credulity, and the Court rejects that reading of the statute. Indiana follows the familiar rules of statutory interpretation, including that a statute is given its clear and plain meaning if unambiguous. See Basileh v. Alghusain, 912 N.E.2d 814, 821 (Ind. 2009). In ordinary usage, the terms purchase and rental are not used synonymously. Contrary to Metal Technologies' contention, the term purchase does typically convey some sense of ownership and is used synonymously with the term "buy." Rental, on the other hand, does not imply ownership and is used to convey the use or temporary use of something in exchange for money. The statute does not list clothing "rental" as one of the permissible purposes of a wage deduction, and the Court refuses to read that term into the statute.
As such, the Court concludes that Metal Technologies' wage deductions for clothing rental were impermissible, and Metal Technologies has failed to pay wages owed to the Plaintiff class. The parties have stipulated that $8,102.04 in deductions were made pursuant to the amended wage assignment form, and the parties have stipulated that no liquidated damages should be added to this amount.
Therefore, the Court concludes that Metal Technologies' wage deduction failed to comply with Ind. Code § 22-2-6-2, and the Plaintiff class is owed
Mr. Weil alleges that the $63.00 "OF" deduction taken from his December 12, 2014 paycheck constitutes an illegal wage deduction in violation of Indiana Code Section 22-2-6-2. Metal Technologies argues that Mr. Weil's state law claim is preempted by a combination of two federal statutes — the Affordable Care Act (the "
The Seventh Circuit has viewed federal preemption as an affirmative defense upon which the defendant bears the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion. Russian Media Grp., LLC v. Cable Am., Inc., 598 F.3d 302, 309 (7th Cir. 2010). Affirmative defenses "must ordinarily be included in the defendant's answer, but `a delay in asserting an affirmative defense waives the defense only if the plaintiff was harmed as a result.'" Id. (citing Best v. City of Portland, 554 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2009)). Metal Technologies did not raise the affirmative defense in its answer. Indeed the first time it was raised was in its Trial Brief. The Court will therefore exercise its discretion to determine whether such harm exists. See id.
Mr. Weil argues that he was harmed as a result of the late assertion of the defense. He argues that because this defense was not listed among Metal Technologies' affirmative defenses, he conducted no specific discovery as to the preemption issue or the possible application of the ACA or ERISA. After viewing the scant evidence presented at trial as to this issue, the Court must agree. While the Court credits Ms. Conrad's testimony that she believed the "OF" deduction to have been taken pursuant to the ACA, Metal Technologies did not establish at trial what the "OF" deduction actually was. Ms. Conrad was the only witness who provided evidence as to the basis for this deduction, and her vague testimony established, at best, only that (1) "OF" stands for Obama Fee; (2) the amount was deducted based on advice received by Metal Technologies' health plan administrator; and (3) Ms. Conrad believed that this payment was mandated or authorized by the ACA. No witness from Metal Technologies' health plan administrator testified as to the purpose of that deduction, or the provision(s) of the ACA (or ERISA) under which the deduction could have been or was taken. Metal Technologies presented no witness testimony or other evidence as to what was done with the funds obtained via the deduction. If given the opportunity to conduct discovery as to the issue, the Court has no doubt that more evidence could have been marshalled at trial as to the details of this deduction. The Court therefore concludes that Mr. Weil was prejudiced by Metal Technologies' failure to raise the preemption affirmative defense at an earlier stage of the litigation, and therefore the preemption defense is waived.
Metal Technologies does not dispute that it took a one-time deduction in the amount of $63.00 from Mr. Weil's pay, and that deduction constitutes a wage assignment. Indiana Code Section 22-2-6-2(a) requires that a wage assignment be (1) in writing; (2) signed by the employee personally; (3) by its terms revocable at any time by the employee upon written notice to the employer; and (4) agreed to in writing by the employer. Ind. Code § 22-2-6-2(a)(1). The only wage assignment form completed by Mr. Weil does not include language stating that it was revocable at any time by the employee upon written notice to the employer. Therefore, the Court concludes that the $63.00 "OF"
Under the IWCA, "[w]henever any employer separates any employee from the pay-roll, the unpaid wages or compensation of such employee shall become due and payable at regular pay day for the pay period in which separation occurred." Ind. Code § 22-2-9-2(a). The statute provides that the damages provision of the IWPS applies to claims raised under the IWCA. Ind. Code § 22-2-9-4(b) ("The provisions of IC 22-2-5-2 apply to civil actions initiated under this subsection..."). That damages provision provides that:
Ind. Code § 22-2-5-2. Mr. Weil requests liquidated damages for this claim, and therefore asks the Court to conclude that Metal Technologies did not act in good faith in taking this deduction. See Brown v. Bucher & Christian Consulting, Inc., 87 N.E.3d 22, 25-27 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (applying current version of Ind. Code § 22-2-5-2 retroactively, imposing good-faith standard on claims predating 2015 amendment). However, the Court has already discussed the very limited evidence presented at trial regarding the nature of this deduction and the circumstances under which it was taken. The Court credits Ms. Conrad's testimony that she believed the OF deduction to have been taken pursuant to the ACA (and upon the advice of Metal Technologies' plan administrator). The vagueness of Ms. Conrad's testimony does not mean the Court finds the deduction was not in good faith, and the Court cannot conclude from that scant evidence presented that Metal Technologies failed to act in good faith when it took the subject deduction from Mr. Weil's pay.
Therefore, the Court awards Mr. Weil
Ms. Fulk raises claims for unpaid wages under the FLSA and the IWPS. The FLSA applies only to the non-payment of certain overtime wages — not the nonpayment of regular ("straight-time") or premium wages. See Allen v. City of Chicago, 865 F.3d 936, 938 (7th Cir. 2017), cert. denied sub nom. Allen v. City of Chicago, Ill., ___ U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 1302, 200 L.Ed.2d 474, 2018 WL 1369175 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2018) ("The Act, codified as 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., requires employers to pay covered employees at one-and-a-half times their usual pay rate if they are employed for longer than a certain hourly threshold."). In this case, that threshold is forty hours per week. The IWPS applies to claims for "straight-time" wages. See, e.g., Parker v. Schilli Transp., 686 N.E.2d 845, 851 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) ("[I]n Indiana, claims for overtime compensation cannot be raised under the [Indiana] Wage Law and ... the [FLSA] is the exclusive remedy for enforcing rights created under that federal statute.").
As the Court concluded in its findings of fact, Ms. Fulk performed work on several occasions for which she did not receive compensation. Metal Technologies argues that, even if this is so, no FLSA violation occurred, because Metal Technologies did not have actual or constructive knowledge that work was being performed during those times. The Court disagrees.
The Court concludes that, as to the unpaid time detailed above, Metal Technologies either knew or should have known that Ms. Fulk was performing work. On two of these occasions, Ms. Fulk was clocked in for a period of time shorter than her scheduled shift. And while Ms. Conrad testified that she calculated employees' pay based on their shift times, Metal Technologies did not pay Ms. Fulk for her entire scheduled shift. Ms. Fulk was paid for less than a full shift. On the rest of these occasions, Ms. Fulk was performing work well beyond her scheduled shift times, but was not paid only for her scheduled shift.
Ms. Conrad must have used some other means to determine how much to pay Ms. Fulk, and based on the evidence presented, the Court concludes that Ms. Conrad used Ms. Fulk's time clock records and overtime authorization forms to do so.
Therefore, the Court must determine in each instance how much Ms. Fulk should have been paid for the uncompensated time. While Ms. Fulk has submitted several possible damages calculations, they are based upon payment for time that the Court has concluded is non-compensable — such as early clock-ins and meal breaks for which Ms. Fulk did not clock out. Therefore the Court is left only with Ms. Fulk's time-clock and weekly payroll records. Those payroll records do not, however, indicate the number of hours for which Ms. Fulk was paid on each individual day (or the applicable pay rates), making the Court's task a challenge.
As the Court concluded above, for the shift running from August 21 to August 22, 2014, Ms. Fulk was not compensated for.17 hours of work time, at a pay rate of $11.00 per hour. During that pay period, Ms. Fulk was paid for 40 regular hours and 2 overtime hours. Because her hours that week exceeded 40, the Court concludes that under the FLSA, Ms. Fulk should have been paid for those .17 hours at the time-and-a-half rate of $16.50 per hour. Ms. Fulk is owed
As the Court concluded above, for the pay period running from September 29 through October 4, 2014, Ms. Fulk was not compensated for 2.93 hours of work time, based on underpayment of hours on two separate days. During that pay period, she was paid for 40 regular hours, 8 time-and-a-half hours, and 8 double-time hours. Ms. Fulk's hours that week exceeded 40, so she is due some form of overtime compensation for the unpaid time. In Exhibit 3A, however, Ms. Fulk indicates that all of her claimed FLSA damages (which claimed amount is greater than the 2.93 hours the Court found unpaid) are offset by the double-time wages she was already paid.
As the Court concluded above, for the pay period running from October 12 through October 18, 2014, Ms. Fulk was not compensated for 2.2 hours of work time. During that pay period, she was paid for 40 regular hours and 6 overtime hours.
As the Court concluded above, for the pay period running from December 21 through December 27, 2014, Ms. Fulk was not compensated for .23 hours of work during that week. During that pay period, she was paid for 32 regular hours, 8 holiday hours, and 2.25 overtime hours. Therefore, under the FLSA, Ms. Fulk should have been paid at the time-and-a-half rate for those .23 hours. At this time, Ms. Fulk was being paid $11.25 per hour, so her time-and-a-half rate would be $16.88 per hour. Therefore, Ms. Fulk is owed
Under the FLSA, "liquidated damages are mandatory, unless the trial court determines that the employer, while acting in good faith, reasonably believed that its conduct was consistent with the law." Jackson v. Go-Tane Servs., 56 Fed. Appx. 267, 273 (7th Cir. 2003); see also 29 U.S.C. § 260 ("if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of the [FLSA], the court may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages or award any amount thereof not to exceed the amount specified in section 16 of such Act"). An employer seeking to avoid the award of liquidated damages under the FLSA "bears a substantial burden in showing that it acted reasonably and with good faith." Bankston v. Illinois, 60 F.3d 1249, 1254 (7th Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). And as described above, under the IWPS, "if the court in any such suit determines that the person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association that failed to pay the employee as provided in section 1 of this chapter was not acting in good faith, the court shall order, as liquidated damages for the failure to pay wages, that the employee be paid an amount equal to two (2) times the amount of wages due the employee." Ind. Code § 22-2-5-2; see also Brown, 87 N.E.3d at 25-27 (applying current version of Ind. Code § 22-2-5-2 retroactively, imposing good-faith standard on claims predating 2015 amendment).
The Court concludes that Metal Technologies did not act in good faith in failing to pay the wages due to Ms. Fulk. As the Court described above, Ms. Conrad could provide no explanation as to why she paid Ms. Fulk for neither her shift time nor the time indicated by her time-clock entries and overtime authorization forms. Absent any explanation as to the discrepancies, the Court simply cannot conclude that Metal Technologies acted in good faith. Therefore, Ms. Fulk is entitled to treble damages for the wage claims raised under both the FLSA and the IWPS.
In the aggregate, Ms. Fulk is owed $42.99 under the FLSA and IWPS for unpaid wages. Trebled, Ms. Fulk is owed
Mr. Weil raises claims for unpaid overtime and regular wages under the FLSA and the IWCA. As described above, the FLSA applies only to the nonpayment of overtime wages, which in this case means hours worked over forty hours per week. See Allen, 865 F.3d at 938. As the Court concluded in its findings of fact, Mr. Weil was not paid for .07 hours of time worked. Mr. Weil was paid for 12.25 hours during that pay period, so these additional .07 hours do not constitute overtime. Therefore, only the IWCA applies to Mr. Weil's claim.
For the reasons detailed above, the Court concludes that Metal Technologies is liable to the Plaintiff class, Ms. Fulk, and Mr. Weil to the extent indicated by the Court's order. The amount of Metal Technologies' liability to the class and the plaintiffs is as follows:
Pursuant to Ind. Code § 22-2-5-2, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), and the FLSA, Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Ms. Fulk may also be entitled to an incentive award for serving as lead plaintiff for the class. Plaintiffs' counsel is
