The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PATRICK BREAUX, CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff
VERSUS NO. 24-1000
ALLIANCE LIFTBOATS, LLC, ET AL., SECTION: “E” (4)
Defendants
ORDER AND REASONS
On April 19, 2024, Plaintiff Patrick Breaux filed this collective action, asserting that
he and other similarly situated individuals were misclassified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”) by his Defendant employer, Alliance Liftboats, LLC.1 Plaintiff
alleges he and other similarly situated employees were misclassified as seamen and, as a
result, their employer improperly considered them exempt from state and federal
overtime laws and denied them overtime pay.2 Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations and
assert that Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have not been misclassified.3
Defendants argue Plaintiff and other employees are exempt from overtime pay under the
FLSA due to the nature of their employment.4
The Court’s Scheduling Order set a status conference for September 4, 2024, for
the purpose of “identify[ing] what facts and legal considerations will be material for
determining whether the group of employees is ‘similarly situated’ for purposes of a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and authoriz[ing] preliminary
discovery accordingly.”5 In preparation for the status conference, the Scheduling Order
1 R. Doc. 1.
2 Id. at p. 2.
3 R. Doc. 7, pp. 6-7.
4 Id.
5 R. Doc. 11, p. 3.
instructed that “Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide the Court with a letter setting out what
preliminary discovery counsel thinks is necessary for the ‘similarly situated’ inquiry.”6
Additionally, within three days of receipt of the letter, “Defense counsel shall provide the
Court with a letter in the same manner responding to the preliminary discovery proposed
by Plaintiff’s counsel.”7 Plaintiff timely submitted his letter to the Court on August 27,
2024. Defendants timely submitted their letter on August 30, 2024.
In his letter, Plaintiff argued that preliminary discovery should involve the
determination of seaman status under the FLSA for Defendant’s employees working on
Alliance liftboats during the relevant time period. Plaintiff further submitted
that the “similarly situated” inquiry involves the identity of those
individuals working on Alliance liftboats, either as cooks, crane operators
or other employees assigned to the Alliance liftboats, in the time period
subject to the FLSA: 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. The discovery necessary
for this determination is primarily written discovery including vessel logs,
persons on board logs, individual payroll/income records for the Alliance
employees, job descriptions, daily work logs, and other similar
documentation [of] what Alliance employees assigned to Alliance liftboats
were doing when and what the status of the vessels was at during those
times, over the course the relevant [four year] period.
Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s preliminary discovery plan was “impermissibly
broad,” and that the discovery plan should be limited to “whether Plaintiff is similarly
situated to ‘cook[s] aboard the L/B MIAMI,’ whose primary duties, like Plaintiff, ‘included
cooking meals for crewmembers and for passengers,’ and were subject to the same
‘payment provisions’ that Plaintiff contends he was. Defendants argued that Plaintiff
inappropriately seeks discovery on all Alliance employees over a four-year period, which
is beyond the scope of discovery needed for the similarly situated inquiry.
6 Id.
7 Id. Both letters were emailed to the Court. The letters are attached to this Order as attachment 1 (Plaintiff’s
letter) and attachment 2 (Defendants’ letter).
The Fifth Circuit case, Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, is directly on point.8
In Swales, the Fifth Circuit held that a district court must identify “at the outset of the
case, what facts and legal considerations will be material to determining whether a group
of ‘employees’ is ‘similarly situated.’ And then it should authorize preliminary discovery
accordingly.”9 The Fifth Circuit recognized that the amount of preliminary discovery
needed may vary depending on the facts and circumstances of the plaintiffs’ employment
situations: where plaintiffs hold similar employment positions, “a district court will not
likely need mountains of discovery,” but in other cases, “where Plaintiffs have
demonstrably different work experiences, the district court will necessarily need more
discovery . . . .”10 A district court is to “consider all of the available evidence,” and the court
has “broad, litigation-management discretion” to regulate discovery to determine
“whether and to whom notice should be issued.”11
In this matter, Plaintiff brings this collective action on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated employees who did not navigate any Alliance liftboats, who were
misclassified as exempt employees, and who were not paid earned overtime pay in
violation of the FLSA.12 Plaintiff’s proposed collective action class definition includes:
All individuals employed by Alliance Liftboats, LLC and/or Helix Energy
Solutions and crewmembers of the following vessels: L/B GALVESTON;
L/B LAFAYETTE; L/B NEW ORLEANS, L/B HOUSTON; L/B MEMPHIS;
L/B NASHVILLE; L/B CHARLESTON; L/B MIAMI; and L/B DLLAS for
the last three years, whose work did not serve the vessels’ operation as a
means of transportation, yet were classified as exempt from overtime
(“Collective Action Members”).13
8 Swales v. KLLM Transp. Servs., L.L.C., 985 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2021).
9 Id. at 441.
10 Id. at 441-42.
11 Id. at 442-43.
12 R. Doc. 1, pp. 2-3.
13 Id. at p. 5.
In determining the scope of the discovery plan in this matter, guided by Swales,
the Court must consider all the evidence necessary to determine the extent to which
Plaintiff is similarly situated to other employees.14 The evidence discovered will guide the
Court’s determination of whether this action should be litigated collectively.15 The
discovery plan should broadly allow for discovery of the identities of all Alliance liftboat
employees and their job duties in order to evaluate whether any or all of the employees
are similarly situated to Plaintiff.16 The Court will adopt Plaintiff’s proposed discovery
plan.
The Court adheres to Swales’ instruction “that district courts should rigorously
enforce [the FLSA’s similarly requirement] at the outset of the litigation.”17 The Court
finds that allowing for a broad scope of discovery at this stage of litigation furthers this
objective. As the Court continues to “consider[] all available evidence,” it reserves the
right to decide whether further discovery is needed or not and to act accordingly based on
the “broad, litigation-management discretion.18
Accordingly;
14 Swales, 985 F.3d at 442.
15 Id. (“Considering, early in the case, whether merits questions can be answered collectively has nothing to
do with endorsing the merits. Rather, addressing these issues from the outset aids the district court in
deciding whether notice is necessary. . . . When a district court ignores that it can decide merits issues when
considering the scope of a collective, it ignores the ‘similarly situated’ analysis and is likely to send notice
to employees who are not potential plaintiffs.”).
16 Id. (“[When] the plaintiffs all have the same job description, and the allegations revolve around the same
aspect of that job . . . . a district court will not likely need mountains of discovery to decide whether notice
is appropriate. In another case . . . where Plaintiffs have demonstrably different work experiences, the
district court will necessarily need more discovery to determine whether notice is going out to those
“similarly situated.”).
17 Id. at 443.
18 Id.
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff may conduct discovery on the identity of those
individuals working on Alliance liftboats, either as cooks, crane operators or other
employees, and the nature of their work performed, in the time period subject to the
FLSA: 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024, including written discovery such as individual
payroll/income records for the Alliance employees, job descriptions, and the production
of documents such as vessel logs, persons on board logs, daily work logs, as well as other
similar documentation needed to show what work Alliance employees assigned to
Alliance liftboats were doing and when and what the status of the vessels was during those
times.19
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of September, 2024.
Suse
SUSIE MOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19 The Court reserves the right to modify the scope of the discovery plan as needed. In accordance with this
Court’s September 4, 2024 Minute Entry, located at Record Document 12, the parties are to exchange and
confer on proposed written discovery requests prior to the October 10, 2024 status conference in this
matter.