On December 30, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota conditionally certified, by stipulation, a collective of workers paid per foot, per job, or with excluded bonuses in Cline v. DC Power Tong, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-301. In this DC Power Tong oilfield overtime lawsuit, the court adopted the parties’ stipulation, and the group was defined only by how workers were paid: per foot, per job, under some other quantity-of-work measure, or with non-discretionary bonuses kept out of the regular rate. Jack Siegel, with co-counsel, represented the workers.
Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland signed the order (Doc. 20). It adopted the parties’ joint stipulation of December 21, 2016 “in its entirety,” noting that the parties agreed to conditional certification and developed stipulated notice and opt-in procedures.
In close paraphrase, the collective reached everyone the defendants employed at any time from December 2013 through the date of the order whose pay was based on quantity of work, such as pay per foot or per job. Workers who received non-discretionary bonus payments that were not included in the regular rate of pay were part of it as well.
The defendants had seven days to produce each worker’s full name, last known address, phone numbers, and email address. The court approved the Notice and Consent form, and workers had sixty (60) days after the Notice went out to return a Consent form. In its conclusion, the court wrote: “The Court, in the broad exercise of its discretion, finds that the proposed class has met the requirements of the FLSA.”
This was an agreed order, not a contested win, and the stipulation the court adopted said the defendants did not admit that collective treatment was proper. The order names no job titles, so membership turned on how a worker was paid.
As general information, the Fair Labor Standards Act requires time and a half for hours over forty in a workweek, and piece-rate pay does not remove that duty. Under 29 C.F.R. § 778.111, a piece-rate worker’s regular rate equals total weekly earnings divided by total hours worked, and an extra half of that rate is owed for each overtime hour. Non-discretionary bonuses generally must be included in the regular rate as well (29 C.F.R. § 778.208). The order did not decide whether DC Power Tong paid its workers correctly.
As in any FLSA collective action, each worker had to opt in by filing a written consent. In 2016, many federal courts used a lenient two-step approach to conditional certification. Some federal appeals courts have since changed this approach — the Fifth Circuit in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services (2021) and the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Center (2023).
This page describes a 2016 court order. The time to join that collective was set by the court in that case. If you have worked in a similar role, the Siegel Law Group can evaluate your own claims.
Were you paid by the foot or by the job, or did your bonuses never raise your overtime pay? Contact the Siegel Law Group for a free consultation.
Related rulings: McClure v. Rocky Mountain Casing, another piece-rate overtime case in the District of North Dakota, Calvillo v. Bull Rogers, another overtime case involving piece-rate pay, and Burruss v. Wyoming Casing, another District of North Dakota case over per-foot pay and excluded bonuses.
Under the 2016 order, the group reached people the defendants employed from December 2013 through the date of the order whose pay depended on quantity of work, such as per-foot or per-job pay. It also took in workers whose non-discretionary bonuses were not included in their regular rate. The order named no job titles, and the sixty-day window to return a Consent form was set by the court for that case.
It is a court order entered after both sides agree that notice should go out to a group of workers. The parties file a joint stipulation instead of litigating the request, and a judge approves it. In Cline v. DC Power Tong, the court adopted the stipulation in full, along with the agreed notice and consent forms.
No. The stipulation the court adopted said the defendants did not admit that collective treatment was proper. It kept their right to ask the court to decertify the group later. Agreeing to send notice is a procedural step, and the order did not rule on whether any worker was underpaid.
The order gave workers sixty days after the Notice went out to return a signed Consent form. The defendants first had seven days to hand over contact details. Those dates applied only to that 2016 collective, so anyone with a similar claim today should get advice on their own deadline.
The Siegel Law Group is a national overtime and wage law firm devoted entirely to representing workers denied overtime pay. Where many firms include wage cases as a small part of a broader employment practice, the Siegel Law Group has built its entire practice around overtime litigation — and the results reflect that commitment: $100M+ recovered for workers, 50+ class and collective action certifications, and 100+ federal lawsuits filed in 27+ federal courts nationwide. Founding attorney Jack Siegel is a Bloomberg BNA contributing author on wage and hour law.
Free consultation. Contingency fee — no fee unless we win.
Phone: (214) 790-4454 | Email: [email protected]
This website contains attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Search by company or industry to see overtime case activity.
Case information shown is from public court filings and approved settlements. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
