Claiming “time of the essence” is a common marketing technique. Sellers use deadlines to create a sense of urgency and motivate buyers to act. In sales, a deadline may not be real; it may be merely an artificial tool to pique the customer’s emotions. In law, time really is of the essence in many settings, including matters involving Fair Labor Standards Act violations. A lawsuit filed after the statutory deadline is vulnerable to a motion to dismiss that will, barring special circumstances, likely end the case with no further litigation, no trial, and no award of damages. Whether you are a worker seeking to ensure a timely filing or an employer seeking to terminate a case that was filed too late, obtaining representation from an experienced Atlanta wage and hour lawyer can be an essential step en route to success.
Absent special circumstances, workers pursuing FLSA claims generally must file within either two or three years. If the worker has presented a willful violation of the law, then the law allows three years to bring that case. If the violation is not an allegedly willful one, the worker has only two years in which to sue. If you are the party seeking relief, filing after the limitations period has elapsed is potentially catastrophic to your case. Conversely, a filing that was outside the limitations period can be a huge boon if you are an employer facing an FLSA claim. In each scenario, a motion to dismiss can terminate the case right away.
A federal unpaid overtime case from Miami is a good illustration. Although not taking place in Georgia, the Miami parties were subject to the same set of requirements under the federal rules as parties to a federal lawsuit in Georgia would face, including satisfying the statute of limitations.
In the Miami case, one employee stopped working for the employer in late January 2021; the other in mid-February of the same year. The workers, however, did not file their lawsuit until April 2024. Even if the Miami workers’ complaint contained appropriate assertions to establish a willful violation (and trigger the longer three-year limitations period,) their filing was still more than 30 days too late. If the violation was non-willful, the filing was more than 13 months past the deadline.
‘Continuing Violations’ and the Statute of Limitations
The “continuing violation” doctrine is one special circumstance that may allow a worker to defeat a claim that his/her case is time-barred. If a worker can demonstrate that the employer engaged in multiple acts all comprising a singular violation, then the worker can seek compensation for the effects of the entire transgression, as long as the ending date of the continuing violation was within the limitations period.
Workers seeking to invoke the continuing violation doctrine in an unpaid overtime or minimum wage case face a steep uphill challenge. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has made it clear that, to apply the doctrine to a FLSA case, the worker must establish that the employer’s conduct was “one incessant violation.” In the majority of unpaid overtime or minimum wage cases, the courts will consider each paycheck that fails to meet the FLSA’s minimum wage or overtime requirements as its own separate, discrete FLSA violation, “each with its own statute of limitations,” and not a single continuing violation with a single filing deadline.
Whether you are a worker who has been harmed by FLSA violations or you are an employer needing to defend an FLSA case, the skilled Atlanta wage and hour attorneys at the law firm of Parks, Chesin & Walbert can help. We have experience helping workers harmed by willful and non-willful violations, and aiding employers facing claims of unpaid overtime or minimum wage violations. Contact us through this website or at 404-873-8048 to schedule a consultation today.