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.
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.
