Part of our oilfield overtime cases →
On December 7, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas conditionally certified, by stipulation, an FLSA collective of piece-rate casing workers in Gutierrez v. Butch’s Rat Hole & Anchor Service, Inc., No. MO:16-CV-00314-RAJ. In this Butch’s Rat Hole oilfield overtime lawsuit, the parties agreed to a collective of casing workers whose pay was calculated per foot, per job, or under another piece-rate measure. The Siegel Law Group represented the workers.
The plaintiff sued Butch’s Rat Hole & Anchor Service, Inc. and an individual defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On December 4, 2016, the parties filed a Stipulation to Conditional Certification, agreeing the case should be conditionally certified as a collective action.
Senior United States District Judge Robert A. Junell signed the order three days later. He granted conditional certification “pursuant to the agreement of the Parties.” The group the court conditionally certified in 2016 was defined this way:
“All casing workers employed by Butch’s Rat Hole & Anchor Service, Inc. over the past three years who received pay on a quantity of work (whether pay per foot, pay per job, or some other piece-rate) basis.”
The order did not yet approve a notice. The plaintiff had to submit proposed notice and consent forms by December 16, 2016, and the defendants had until December 23, 2016, to object to them.
This was an agreed order rather than a contested ruling: both sides asked for conditional certification, and the court granted it. Because the definition turned on how workers were paid instead of on any particular job title, membership depended on the compensation method, and the order did not decide whether those pay practices were lawful.
The order explains that workers join an FLSA collective action only by filing a written consent. It describes the two-stage approach most Fifth Circuit courts then used: a “notice stage” decided under “a fairly lenient standard,” followed by a possible decertification motion after discovery.
The court applied, at the time of this 2016 order, that two-stage approach. 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). Swales now governs federal courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Read more about how conditional certification works.
As general information, piece-rate pay does not cancel the right to overtime. A non-exempt piece-rate worker’s regular rate is generally the week’s total piece earnings divided by all hours worked, plus an extra half of that rate for each hour over 40 (29 C.F.R. § 778.111). The order does not describe the workers’ specific overtime claims.
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.
Have you worked as a casing worker and been paid by the foot, by the job, or by another piece rate, with weeks over 40 hours? Contact the Siegel Law Group for a free consultation.
Related rulings: Minyard v. Double D Tong, another casing worker overtime case in the Western District of Texas, McClure v. Rocky Mountain Casing, another overtime case for piece-rate casing crews, and Scheriger v. Gabe’s Casing, another Western District of Texas case over per-foot pay.
The stipulated definition reached every casing worker the company employed during the three years it covered whose compensation was based on quantity of work, whether per foot, per job, or another piece-rate measure. The definition named no other job titles. The order left the notice and consent forms for later approval, so the time to join was not set in this order.
Yes. The plaintiff and both defendants filed a Stipulation to Conditional Certification on December 4, 2016, agreeing that the case should proceed as a collective action. The judge granted certification three days later, expressly based on the parties’ agreement. As general information, consenting to notice is a procedural choice, not an admission that any overtime is owed.
Sometimes. The FLSA defines an employer to include any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer toward an employee (29 U.S.C. § 203(d)). Courts look at the economic reality of a person’s control over hiring, pay, and work rules. In Gutierrez, the company and one individual were both named as defendants.
Federal law (29 U.S.C. § 255(a)) usually gives a casing worker two years to recover each underpaid week, stretching to three when the employer’s conduct was willful. Under section 256(b), a collective-action claim generally is not treated as filed until that worker’s own written consent is filed, so older weeks can drop out while a worker waits. See our guide to overtime filing deadlines.
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.
