# Grounds v. Little Rock, City of

> District Court, E.D. Arkansas · April 21, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10005496

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** April 21, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10005496

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the AMWA appears to impose the same overtime requirements as the FLSA
- stating that the AMWA appears to impose the same overtime requirements as the FLSA

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
GREG GROUNDS PLAINTIFF

VS. 4:21-CV-00115-BRW

CITY OF LITTLE ROCK DEFENDANT
ORDER
Pending is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff has responded with an
Amended Complaint.1 For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as
moot.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)2 and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”).3 After Defendant filed its motion, Plaintiff filed his first
amended complaint within the time for amending as a matter of right under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.4
In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff “failed to state claim for a
willful violation under the FLSA.” Additionally, Defendant contends that “Plaintiff asserts no
factual basis to support any claim for the [Defendant]’s alleged FLSA violation.”
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff added three allegations:
(1) Defendant knew or should have known that its actions violated the FLSA.

1Doc. No. 7.
229 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
3Ark. Code Ann. § 11–4–201 et seq.
4Doc. No. 7.
(2) Defendant knew or should have known that the FLSA requires employers to pay
employees time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek.
(3) Defendant assigned Plaintiff his duties and knew or should have known that those
duties did not qualify Plaintiff for any exemption from the overtime requirements of
the FLSA.5
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay him overtime. To
prevail on this claim , Plaintiff must “present evidence that they worked above their scheduled
hours without compensation and that the [Defendant] knew or should have known that [he] [was]
working overtime.”6 The same standards apply to Plaintiff’s AMWA claims.7 Additionally,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant willfully violated the FLSA, which triggers the three-year
limitations period rather than two years..8 The Supreme Court has defined a “willful” violation
as one where “the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether
its conduct was prohibited by the statute.”9
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss recited the relevant legal standards without much
analysis of the issues. Defendant focused on Plaintiff’s failure to allege that Defendant knew

5Doc. No. 7, p. 5.
6Hertz v. Woodbury Cnty., Iowa, 566 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir.2009).
7See Helmert v. Butterball, LLC, 805 F.Supp.2d 655, 663 n. 8 (E.D.Ark. 2011) (stating
that the AMWA appears to impose the same overtime requirements as the FLSA); see also Ark.
Admin. Code 010.14.1–112 (providing that the Arkansas Department of Labor “may rely on the
interpretations of the U.S. Department of Labor and federal precedent established under the Fair
Labor Standards Act in interpreting and applying the provisions of [the AMWA] ... except to the
extent a different interpretation is clearly required.”)
8See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).
9McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133 (1988); see Jarrett v. ERC
Properties, Inc., 211 F.3d 1078, 1082 (8th Cir.2000).
that he was working overtime and that it was violating the FLSA.10 Plaintiff addressed this issue,
although in a bare bones way, in his Amended Complaint. Still, the Amended Complaint moots
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss because it directly addresses issues raised in the Motion to
Dismiss.

CONCLUSION
Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of April, 2021.

Billy Roy Wilson__________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10Doc. No. 6.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10005496. Public record. Not legal advice.