In FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) violation cases, lawyers representing the plaintiff often assert that every single alleged wage-hour violation is ‘willful’. This strategy can be viewed as a negotiation tactic or a misunderstanding of the concept of ‘willfulness’. The argument implies that any violation extends the statute of limitations for the offence by an additional year. However, just because the plaintiff claims it’s willful, does not make it so.
Understanding the legal doctrine of willfulness and its implications in FLSA cases is crucial. It is a claim that should not be thrown around lightly or misused as a generic litigation strategy. In many instances, asserting a ‘willful’ violation may represent a strategic move – a negotiating ploy to obtain a larger settlement by positioning the claim for an additional year of damages.
Some critics suggest this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the willfulness doctrine. Others argue that it shows a trend of attorneys adopting an assertive or aggressive stance, typical of plaintiff attorneys.
While this approach may throw a wrench in negotiations, it’s important for legal professionals to remember that such arguments need to be substantiated. The claim of a ‘willful’ violation requires a demonstration of either intentional violation of the statute or reckless disregard. To label every alleged violation as ‘willful’, without validating these prerequisites, may hinder the credibility of the plaintiff’s case and only lead to drawn-out, contentious litigation.
In summary, while the rhetoric of ‘willfulness’ can initially appear imposing, it does not necessarily equate to an automatic increase in liability. Legal professionals working on FLSA cases need not feel intimidated nor be compelled to agree to larger settlements based simply on such assertions. Careful examination of the facts and a legal analysis should always guide decision-making in these matters.
For further details, the observations presented here are informed by this discussion on JDSupra provided by Fox Rothschild LLP.