Part of our oilfield overtime cases →
On July 27, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico entered a stipulated order conditionally certifying an FLSA collective of salaried field personnel in Deschamps v. Nova Hardbanding, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00493-GBW-SMV. In this Nova Hardbanding oilfield overtime lawsuit, the parties agreed to conditional certification, and the court approved notice by mail, email, and text message. Jack Siegel served as lead counsel for the workers.
A United States Magistrate Judge signed the Stipulation and Order Regarding Notice to Potential Plaintiffs (Doc. 13). Under it, the parties agreed that the court’s signature would conditionally certify the case as an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
In close paraphrase, the group included field personnel employed by the defendants over the previous three years who were paid a salary or salary plus bonus and whose primary duties involved technical or manual labor at job sites. A footnote listed drill pipe inspectors, hardbanders, hardbander operators, inspection helpers, inspectors, inspector helpers, and other job titles with similar duties.
The defendants had seven days to produce contact information. If they were late, the statute of limitations would be tolled for each day after the seventh day. Notice could go by first class mail, overnight delivery, or electronically, including a short text message and email whose wording the order set out, each with a link to the notice and consent form. Workers had forty-five (45) days from the first mailing to file a consent form.
This was an agreed order. It states: “Despite this stipulation, Defendants continue to deny that they have violated the FLSA in any respect.” The court-approved notice also said the court took no position on the merits. Still, because the group turned on pay and duties rather than one title, a hardbander and an inspector helper could both receive notice.
According to the court-approved notice attached to the order, the lawsuit claimed that Nova misclassified field personnel as exempt from overtime, paid them on a salary basis, and failed to pay overtime for hours over forty. Nova denied those claims, and the order did not decide them.
As general information, a salary alone does not make a hardbander or pipe inspector exempt, and under 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(a) the white-collar exemptions do not apply to manual laborers or other blue-collar workers. The administrative exemption, for example, requires pay on a salary basis at or above a set minimum and a primary duty of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or its customers. That primary duty must also include the exercise of discretion and independent judgment on matters of significance. Learn more about salaried vs. hourly pay and overtime.
In 2017, 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 2017 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 a salaried hardbander, drill pipe inspector, or inspector helper doing hands-on work at job sites? Contact the Siegel Law Group for a free consultation.
Related rulings: Rodriguez v. Peak Pressure Control, another District of New Mexico oilfield overtime case for salaried field workers, Weaks v. Nova Mud, another 2017 District of New Mexico stipulated order for salaried field personnel, and Olivas v. C & S Oilfield Services, another District of New Mexico case for salaried field personnel.
Often they do. A hardbander or drill pipe inspector who spends the day on hands-on technical or manual work usually does not fit a white-collar exemption, even with a salary. Federal rules exclude blue-collar workers from those exemptions. The answer depends on your actual duties, not your title or your pay stub.
No, not by itself. Pay is only one part of the test, and an exemption also requires that the worker’s main duties fit a specific category, such as executive, administrative, or professional work. A field employee earning a salary plus a bonus for manual job-site work can still be owed time and a half for hours past forty.
The court allowed it. In the Nova Hardbanding case, the order set the exact words of a short text and email, and each message carried a link to electronic copies of the notice and consent form. Not every court approves text notice, and consent rules vary by case.
The 2017 order reached field personnel the defendants had employed during the three prior years, if they were paid a salary or salary plus bonus and their primary duties involved technical or manual labor at job sites. A footnote named drill pipe inspectors, hardbanders, hardbander operators, and inspector helpers, among others. The court in that case set its own time to join.
If you did this kind of work for another employer and weren't paid overtime for hours over 40, tell us your job title, your employer and the state you worked in. We'll tell you plainly whether we think you have a case. Federal law makes it illegal to retaliate against you for asking.
Siegel Law Group PLLC concentrates in unpaid overtime cases under the FLSA and state wage laws. The firm has filed more than 100 federal overtime cases, obtained 50+ class and collective certifications in 20 federal judicial districts across 15 states, and recovered more than $100 million for workers. It has never represented an employer in a wage case. Free consultation. Contingency fee: we advance case costs, and they are repaid from any recovery. No recovery, no fee and no costs. Phone: (214) 790-4454 | Email: [email protected]
These are results in other people's cases. Every case depends on its own facts and law. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website contains attorney advertising.
Attorney responsible: Jack L. Siegel, Siegel Law Group PLLC, Dallas, Texas.
Automated chat. Not legal advice, not a substitute for an attorney, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Send your job title and how you are paid — no documents, no detailed case facts. An inquiry does not by itself stop the firm from representing someone else in a related matter.
Attorney advertising. Jack L. Siegel of Siegel Law Group PLLC, Dallas, Texas, is responsible for this content.
Before you start
We opened this box, not you. The notice above applies. Start when you are ready, or close it and nothing happens.
Search by company or industry to see overtime case activity.
This is a list of cases this firm filed. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
"Certified" means a judge agreed the case could go forward for a group of workers at once, not just the one person who filed it. It is a step in the case, not the end of it.
Attorney advertising. Case information shown is taken from public court filings and court-approved settlements in cases this firm brought. Every case turns on its own facts and on the law of the court where it is heard. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome, and a certification or ruling in one case does not guarantee the same result in another. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and reading it or sending a message does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Jack L. Siegel of Siegel Law Group PLLC, Dallas, Texas, is responsible for the content of this page. He appears in federal courts in other states by admission to those courts or by leave of court, and is not licensed in every state shown in this list.
