Opinion ID: 2623203
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Statute of Limitations Under the FLSA

Text: The last issue we consider is Providence's argument that the superior court erred when it allowed Hutka to receive three years of overtime damages under the two-year statute of limitations. The statute of limitations under the FLSA is two years but a court may apply a three-year statute of limitations if a particular employer's conduct embodies a willful violation. [53] Providence argues that Hutka should not have received three years of overtime damages. Hutka again asserts that Providence waived its right to appeal this issue because it did not raise it below. We conclude that the issue was not waived because Providence had previously sought partial summary judgment and dismissal based on the two-year statute of limitations. Providence preserved the issue by asserting, among other arguments, that the FLSA provides a two-year statute of limitations for unpaid overtime unless the violation is willful. We therefore conclude that the trial court should not have applied a three-year statute of limitations unless Providence willfully violated the statute. To prove a particular FLSA violation willful, the Supreme Court has generally required evidence that an employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute. [54] In addressing liquidated damages the superior court expressly found that it does appear more likely than not that the employer was testing the line and had reason to believe that there was no exemption applicable to Ms. Hutka.... This is tantamount to a finding that Providence recklessly disregarded the applicable law, and thus committed a willful violation as that term has been defined in relation to the three-year statute of limitations. There was ample evidence to support the superior court's finding in this regard. For example, the superior court noted that although timecards were kept, the employer directed that they not be kept accurately. [55] And when Hutka attempted to record her hours accurately, her supervisor admittedly would scratch it out and write exempt employee, telling Hutka don't do this again, you're an exempt employee. Based on the superior court's finding and its support in the record, we affirm its application of the three-year statute of limitations.