Arthur Copeland and other plaintiffs sued C.A.A.I.R., Inc. and other defendants, including Simmons Foods, Inc. and Simmons Pet Food, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, raising claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and for unjust enrichment under Missouri law. Defendants Simmons Foods, Inc. and Simmons Pet Food, Inc. moved for partial judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) regarding the Missouri unjust enrichment claim.
Factual Overview
Plaintiffs were residents of Christian Alcoholics and Addicts in Recovery’s (CAAIR) dormitories in Jay, Oklahoma. They allege that while CAAIR presented itself as a drug treatment program, they were instead put to work for the defendants without pay. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants were unjustly enriched by the monetary benefits of their unpaid work.
The case has a complex procedural history, including multiple amended complaints. The defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings was filed before the third amended complaint, but the court decided to address the motion’s merits as applied to the unjust enrichment claim in the third amended complaint.
Legal Analysis
FLSA Preemption: The defendants argued that the FLSA preempts the plaintiffs’ Missouri unjust enrichment claim. The court examined three types of preemption: explicit, field, and conflict preemption. The court determined that explicit and field preemption did not apply, leaving only conflict preemption as a possibility.
Conflict Preemption: The court found no conflict between the FLSA and the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. It reasoned that the unjust enrichment claim does not lower the floor for employee wages or increase the number of hours an employee needs to work to earn overtime wages, nor does it interfere with FLSA enforcement efforts. The court viewed the FLSA and unjust enrichment claims as different tools that can be used to accomplish similar goals.
The court denied the defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, allowing the plaintiffs’ Missouri unjust enrichment claim to proceed alongside their FLSA claim.
Schrag on Law 