On February 27, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted in part a motion for conditional certification in Snively v. Peak Pressure Control, LLC, No. MO:15-CV-00134-RAJ-DC, conditionally certifying a collective of oilfield Pressure Control Operators. In this pressure control operator overtime lawsuit, the court approved notice by mail, email, and posting in the defendants’ shops. Jack Siegel, with co-counsel, represented the workers.
The Order Granting in Part Motion for Conditional Certification was signed in the Midland/Odessa Division by Senior United States District Judge Robert A. Junell. It was filed on February 29, 2016 (Doc. 56). The defendants, Peak Pressure Control, LLC and Nine Energy Service, LLC, opposed the motion.
The plaintiffs had asked for a group of pressure control operators paid in whole or in part on a salary basis from August 26, 2012 on. The definition the court adopted did not include the salary-basis language, and it measured the three-year period from the date the court authorized notice, not from the date the complaint was filed. It adopted this definition: “All current and former Pressure Control Operators employed by Peak Pressure Control and/or Nine Energy Services, L.L.C. during the three-year period before the date the Court authorizes notice.”
The court found the plaintiffs met the first-stage test. It relied on the declarations of 18 Pressure Control Operators. It also noted that forty-six operators had already filed consent forms to join.
Notice terms. Under the order:
According to the order, the declarants said their primary duties were to set up, operate, and monitor the defendants’ pressure control equipment and tools at job sites. They said they worked shifts of 18 to 24 hours on oil and gas sites for many days at a time, and frequently 120 hours or more per week. They said they were paid a base salary plus bonus, with no overtime pay for hours over 40.
The defendants argued that exemption defenses would require individual decisions for each worker. They pointed to the Motor Carrier Act exemption and the highly-compensated exemption. The court disagreed at this stage: “Plaintiffs and all putative class members have the same employment title and job responsibilities as Pressure Control Operators.” It added that it was “not convinced the defenses asserted are so individualized that collective adjudication of this claim is unworkable.”
The court also approved email notice over the defendants’ objection. It agreed with other courts that email is an appropriate way to send notice in FLSA cases. It ordered workplace posting too, noting the defendants offered no specific evidence of harm.
None of this decided the merits. The court made no finding that Peak Pressure Control or Nine Energy Service misclassified anyone or broke the law.
As general information, overtime under the FLSA is owed at one and one-half times the regular rate for hours past forty unless an exemption applies. The employer bears the burden of proving an exemption. A salary plus bonus does not by itself make a worker exempt.
The highly-compensated exemption generally requires high total annual pay, part of it on a salary basis, and at least one exempt executive, administrative, or professional duty performed customarily and regularly. Under 29 C.F.R. § 541.601(d), it applies only to employees whose primary duty includes office or non-manual work. The Motor Carrier Act exemption can reach certain employees whose duties affect the safety of motor vehicles in interstate commerce, subject to exceptions. This 2016 order did not decide whether either exemption applied.
The court applied the two-stage Lusardi approach that, at the time of this 2016 order, most courts in the Fifth Circuit used. At the notice stage, a court decides under a lenient standard whether workers are similar enough to receive notice. After discovery, the employer may ask the court to decertify the group.
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. Learn more about collective action certification and salaried pay and overtime.
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.
Did you work as a pressure control operator or in a similar job running equipment at oil and gas sites? Were you paid a salary, or salary plus bonus, while working long shifts with no overtime? A lawyer can review how you were paid. Contact the Siegel Law Group for a free consultation.
Related rulings: Snively v. Peak Pressure Control, a later ruling in this same case, Rodriguez v. Peak Pressure Control, another overtime case involving Peak Pressure Control, and Chacon v. Black Star Energy, a Western District of Texas order the same month for workers paid a salary plus bonus.
Some do. Pay by salary, with or without a bonus, does not on its own make a pressure control operator exempt, because exemptions turn on actual duties as well as pay. Operators who set up, run, and monitor equipment at job sites generally do hands-on work, which the white-collar exemptions generally do not reach. Each claim turns on its own facts.
No. The defendants raised the Motor Carrier Act and highly-compensated exemptions and argued they would need worker-by-worker decisions. The court was not convinced those defenses were so individualized that a collective could not work, because all the operators shared one title and set of job duties. It left the merits of both exemptions for later in the case.
Three ways. Plaintiffs’ counsel could send the notice by mail and by email over sixty days, after the court overruled the defendants’ objection to email. The defendants also had to post it in a readily visible spot in each shop where Pressure Control Operators reported and certify the posting in writing. Operators had sixty days to send in consent forms.
Some courts require it. In Snively, the defendants asked for language telling workers they could contact any attorney of their choosing, and the court agreed. The revised notice had to advise workers of their right to separate counsel. The court also kept defense counsel’s contact details off the notice, noting ethical concerns courts have raised about defense counsel contacting potential class members.
Looking back, 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) generally reaches two years of pay, or three for a willful violation. In Snively, the court counted the collective’s three-year window back from the date it authorized notice instead of from the complaint. Under section 256(b), an individual operator’s claim is generally measured from the day that operator’s written consent is filed, as explained on our overtime claim deadlines page.
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.
