On February 6, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas conditionally certified an FLSA collective of field personnel paid on a salary-plus-job bonus basis in Robinson v. RWLS, LLC, Civil No. SA-16-cv-201-OLG. The court accepted in part a magistrate judge’s recommendation. In this Renegade Services oilfield overtime lawsuit, the collective included riggers, operators, engineers in training, and engineers. Jack Siegel, with co-counsel, represented the workers.
The workers sued RWLS, LLC, doing business as Renegade Services, along with two individual defendants, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They asked the court for conditional certification and notice. The defendants opposed the motion.
On January 11, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge John W. Primomo recommended that conditional certification be granted. He also recommended that the motion for notice be granted in part, subject to further negotiation by the parties, and the defendants objected only to the start date of the class period. The parties then filed a joint stipulation agreeing that the start date should be three years before the date notice issued.
On February 6, 2017, Chief United States District Judge Orlando L. Garcia accepted the recommendation in part. He set the start date at three years before notice issued, in light of the stipulation and the law.
In close paraphrase, the collective the court conditionally certified in 2017 included all field personnel employed by the defendants from three years before notice issued to the present who were paid on a salary-plus-job bonus basis. That group included, but was not limited to, riggers, operators, engineers in training, and engineers.
On notice, the recommendation directed the parties to confer and submit agreed notice and consent forms within fourteen days of the district court’s order. It also said consent forms should not be filed with the court. Instead, the notice should tell workers to mail them to the plaintiffs’ lawyers or to another agreed third party.
The defendants argued that the job titles had different duties. They asked the court to limit any group to riggers, operators, and pressure control operators. The recommendation rejected that request. It said: “Different job classifications and responsibilities of members of the putative class are not materially relevant differences under the first stage of the two-step certification process.”
According to the recommendation, the lead plaintiff and six other workers gave sworn statements. They described a base salary plus job bonus plan that did not provide overtime pay for overtime hours, at locations including Andrews and Levelland, Texas. The recommendation added: “The Court is aware of no requirement that each job category of oilfield workers file its own FLSA lawsuit once they have demonstrated they have been/are being subjected to the same allegedly unlawful policy.”
The recommendation turned aside other defense arguments, too. It said the employer’s possible Motor Carrier Act defense went to the merits and was not a reason to deny notice. It said the need for individual damages figures should not bar conditional certification. It also rejected the argument that court notice was unnecessary because some workers had already heard about the case.
In its words, once conditional certification is granted, “notice must be sent to the proposed class in one form or another.”
Conditional certification is an early step under a lenient standard. It is not a finding that Renegade Services broke the law. The recommendation noted that the defendants would have ample chance to seek decertification after discovery.
According to the recommendation, the workers alleged they were paid a fixed salary plus a non-discretionary job bonus or day rate for all hours worked in the field, with no overtime for hours over 40. The defendants pointed out that the second amended complaint made no claim of misclassification. The order does not decide whether any exemption applied.
As general information, a salary does not by itself make an oilfield rigger or operator exempt. For non-exempt workers, the FLSA generally requires non-discretionary bonuses to be included in the regular rate used to figure overtime (29 U.S.C. § 207(e)). The Motor Carrier Act exemption can cover certain workers whose duties affect the safe operation of motor vehicles in interstate commerce (29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1)), depending on each worker’s actual duties. It generally does not apply in a week when the worker’s job includes, even in part, work on vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less (the small-vehicle exception).
Learn more about salaried pay and overtime rights.
The court applied, at the time of this 2017 order, the two-stage Lusardi approach then followed by most district courts in the Fifth Circuit. Under it, a lenient notice stage came first, then a possible decertification motion after discovery. 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 conditional certification.
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.
Have you worked in the oilfield as a rigger, operator, engineer in training, engineer, or other field employee? Were you paid a salary plus job bonuses and never paid overtime for weeks over 40 hours? Contact the Siegel Law Group for a free consultation.
Related rulings: Snively v. Peak Pressure, another oilfield overtime case in the Western District of Texas, Rodriguez v. Peak Pressure Control, another oilfield overtime case over salary-plus-bonus pay, and Pearson v. Colt Oilfield, another Western District of Texas case for salaried operators.
They may. Pairing a salary with job bonuses does not, on its own, turn a rigger into an exempt employee. For non-exempt riggers, each overtime hour is owed at 1.5 times the regular rate, and promised job bonuses usually count toward that rate. The answer turns on the rigger’s actual duties and any exemption the employer claims.
They did in Robinson v. RWLS, where the employer argued the jobs had different duties. Under the lenient first-stage standard most Fifth Circuit courts then used, the magistrate judge found different job titles were not material differences when workers alleged the same salary-plus-bonus pay plan. The district judge accepted that recommendation in part. Courts in the Fifth Circuit now apply a different test.
Not at the notice stage in this case. The Renegade Services employer said the Motor Carrier Act exemption might apply to some job types. The magistrate judge’s recommendation treated that as a merits issue for later, not a reason to deny notice. In general, the exemption depends on a worker’s actual duties with vehicles in interstate commerce, and it does not cover everyone.
In Robinson v. RWLS, the employer argued that court notice was unnecessary because some workers had already heard about the case. The magistrate judge disagreed, writing that once conditional certification is granted, “notice must be sent to the proposed class in one form or another.” Each court sets its own notice rules.
Three years before notice issued. The magistrate judge first recommended a start date of September 2013, the defendants objected, and the parties then agreed the period should run from three years before the notice date. The district judge adopted that date. Read about overtime claim time limits.
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.
