Plaintiff Neal Gray sued defendant AquaTerra Contracting, LLC in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims of breach of contract, violation of RSMo. §290.110, and violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Statement of Undisputed Facts
AquaTerra Contracting, LLC operates in the business of selling pools and spas at retail prices, not involved in wholesaling or reselling. Neal Gray was hired as a salesperson under a written Employment Agreement starting January 3, 2022. This agreement specified a salary of $55,000 for the first eight weeks followed by a commission-based payment. Despite some dispute over Gray’s job title change to “designer,” the undisputed facts show he was initially hired as a salesperson, with duties that could be modified. During his employment, which lasted until December 16, 2022, Gray was paid both a salary and commissions, with the majority of his compensation coming from commissions. Gray filed a lawsuit alleging various claims, including a violation of the FLSA for overtime compensation.
Legal Analysis
Motion for Summary Judgment on FLSA Violation (Count III): The core legal contention was whether AquaTerra violated the FLSA’s overtime requirements. The defendant argued that the FLSA’s overtime provisions did not apply to Gray because he was paid primarily on commission, as per an exemption under §207(i) of the FLSA. This exemption applies to employees of a retail or service establishment who are paid more than one and a half times the minimum wage and receive more than half their compensation in commissions. The court found that AquaTerra met the criteria for this exemption, highlighting that a substantial part of Gray’s earnings was commission-based, satisfying the requirement that more than half of an employee’s compensation over a representative period is from commissions.
Plaintiff’s State Law Claims (Counts I & II): After granting the motion for summary judgment on the FLSA claim, the court considered whether to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Deciding against it, the court pointed to principles of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, suggesting that these state law matters should be determined by Missouri state courts. Consequently, the state law claims were remanded to state court for further proceedings. The court’s conclusion was that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding the FLSA claim (Count III) was granted, resulting in the dismissal of this claim with prejudice. The remaining state law claims were remanded to the state court for adjudication.
Schrag on Law 