Employment Law Expert Witness’ Opinion Regarding the Application of the MCA Exemption Excluded
Posted on December 9, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiffs, currently or formerly employed by Defendants as lawn and landscape workers, bring this class and collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state law, alleging that Defendants failed to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
Defendants have retained Brian Farrington to provide an expert opinion regarding the application of the Motor Carrier Act (“MCA”) exemption to Plaintiffs—an issue that is the primary focus of the FLSA and MMWL (“Missouri Minimum Wage Law”) claims in this litigation.
Plaintiffs move to exclude Farrington’s testimony and report under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Rule 702, which was amended effective December 1, 2023, governs the admissibility of expert witness testimony by allowing someone “who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education [to] testify in the form of an opinion.”
Employment Law Expert Witness
Brian Farrington is a former investigator in the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. After working as an investigator for nearly 15 years in which he performed between 500 and 600 full DOL investigations, Farrington obtained his law degree. He presently practices employment law at a private law firm where his practice is focused almost exclusively on wage and hour matters. Together, Farrington has nearly 50 years of experience working primarily on wage and hour issues.
Discussion by the Court
In his report, Farrington sets forth in detail his view of the statutory and regulatory framework of the MCA exemption as further explicated by numerous federal court decisions.
Using his interpretation of the law he deems pertinent to the MCA exemption, Farrington then applies that law to facts that he has gleaned from the evidence in the case. He opined that “the types of employees under consideration in this lawsuit impact safety of operation of motor vehicles by driving Epic’s trucks, helping the truck drivers, loading and inspecting the trucks and trailers, maintaining and fixing the trucks and trailers, and/or combinations of such duties—to determine the application of the MCA exemption and the exempt status of Plaintiffs.”
Analysis
According to Plaintiffs, Farrington’s report consists entirely of inadmissible legal conclusions that are based on his interpretation of the law as it applies to his factual findings.
In the report, Farrington analyzed the Plaintiff’s job duties through the lens of the pertinent regulations to conclude that Plaintiff’s job was exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA.
While Farrington analyzes the job duties of Epic’s employees, applies various regulations to those job duties, and concludes that the DOL would find that Epic’s employees are exempt under the MCA exemption, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Farrington’s report in this case is not admissible as it is rife with legal conclusions drawn from an application of the law as he views it to facts as he finds them. Rather than providing the jury with objective criteria by which they can exercise independent judgment and assess the nature and extent of the activities performed by Epic’s employees, Farrington supplants the jury’s judgment with his own.
Similarly, Farrington opines on the ultimate legal determination in this case—whether Plaintiffs are exempt by virtue of the MCA exemption—and, in doing so, usurps the role of the Court.
Because Farrington’s opinions are not properly within the scope of expert testimony, the Court finds that the expert report should be stricken in its entirety and Farrington will not be permitted to testify at trial. The Court declined Defendants’ invitation to strike those portions of Farrington’s report that constitute legal conclusions or that usurp the jury’s role as fact finder and to permit Farrington to testify consistent with admissible statements in the report. After the Court has excised the inadmissible portions of the report, there is simply nothing left in the report on which Farrington might appropriately opine.
Held
The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Defendants’ expert Brian Farrington.
Key Takeaway:
When Farrington analyzed the Plaintiff’s job duties through the lens of the pertinent regulations to conclude that Plaintiff’s job was exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA, the Court declined Defendants’ invitation to strike those portions of Farrington’s report that constitute legal conclusions or that usurp the jury’s role as fact finder and to permit Farrington to testify consistent with admissible statements in the report. After the Court has excised the inadmissible portions of the report, there is simply nothing left in the report on which Farrington might appropriately opine.
Rather than providing the jury with objective criteria by which they can exercise independent judgment and assess the nature and extent of the activities performed by Epic’s employees, Farrington supplants the jury’s judgment with his own.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Gomez Et Al V. Epic Landscape Productions, L.C., Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:22cv2198 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Kansas |
| Order Date: | December 3, 2024 |
