Opinion ID: 497987
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: prospective injunction

Text: 31 Finally, the Secretary appeals the district court's denial of injunctive relief. We review that decision for abuse of discretion or for application of an erroneous legal principle. Brock v. Big Bear Market # 3, 825 F.2d 1381, 1383 (9th Cir.1987). 32 The district court based its decision to deny injunctive relief in this case largely on its finding that the defendants honestly believed they were not violating the FLSA. The court explained: 33 [The Shirks'] violation of FLSA was not willful and, despite the violations, I find they were acting in good faith. I find no reason to believe they are not presently complying with the Act or that they will fail to comply with it in the future. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to issue a prospective injunction against them at this time. 34 Though the question of whether the trial court thereby abused its discretion is a close one, examination of our cases indicates that the district court failed to give adequate weight to relevant factors in reaching its decision. 35 We have emphasized that prospective injunctions under FLSA serve a remedial not a punitive purpose: 36 The injunction subjects the defendants to no penalty, to no hardship. It requires the defendants to do what the Act requires anyway--to comply with the law.... [T]he manifest difficulty of the Government's inspecting, investigating, and litigating every complaint of a violation weighs heavily in favor of enforcement by injunction--after the court has found an unquestionable violation of the Act. 37 Marshall v. Chala Enterprises, Inc., 645 F.2d 799, 804 (9th Cir.1981) (Chala ) (emphasis in original) (quoting Mitchell v. Pidcock, 299 F.2d 281, 287 (5th Cir.1962)). We noted that [i]n exercising its discretion, the district court must give substantial weight to the fact that the Secretary seeks to vindicate a public, not a private, right. Id. Prospective injunctions place the cost of noncompliance on the employer and are essential to effectuate Congress's policy of abolishing substandard labor conditions by preventing recurring violations. Id.; see also Big Bear, 825 F.2d at 1383. Thus, though the district court has discretion to deny injunctive relief in appropriate cases, this discretion is limited by consideration of the importance of prospective relief as a means of ensuring compliance with the provisions of the FLSA. Chala, 645 F.2d at 804. 38 In determining whether to award injunctive relief against an employer, the district judge should consider evidence of current compliance, any record of past violations, and the likelihood of future compliance. See Big Bear, 825 F.2d at 1383; Wirtz v. Atlas Manufacturing Co., 377 F.2d 112 (5th Cir.1967) (Wirtz ). Current compliance alone is not a sufficient ground for denying injunctive relief. Big Bear, 825 F.2d at 1383; Chala, 645 F.2d at 804. 39 The most important factor the district court must weigh in deciding whether to grant such relief is the likelihood that the employer will comply with the Act in the future. Big Bear, 825 F.2d at 1383 (a district court must weigh the finding of violations against factors that indicate a reasonable likelihood that the violations will not recur); Wirtz, 377 F.2d at 116. 40 In determining likelihood of future compliance, the court should consider the employer's previous conduct and the dependability of its promises for future compliance. Big Bear, 825 F.2d at 1383; Wirtz, 377 F.2d at 116. Our review of the record convinces us that the district court did not adequately consider these factors in reaching its decision. 41 First, the court failed to give adequate weight to the fact that the Shirks have been guilty of violating the FLSA on at least one prior occasion by failing to pay their employees overtime compensation. 4 We stated in Big Bear that previous violations or bad faith are factors weighing heavily in favor of granting a prospective injunction. 825 F.2d at 1383. The district court observed that acts of past noncompliance are relevant to a determination of whether injunctive relief is appropriate. It did not, however, mention the Shirks' past violation in reaching its decision. 42 Second, the court failed to consider adequately the dependability of the Shirks' promise of future compliance. It stated that the extent to which the defendant has made a promise of future compliance is a relevant factor in determining whether to grant injunctive relief. This misstates the relevant test. Mere assurances of future compliance do not provide a sufficient basis for denying an injunction. Chala, 645 F.2d at 804. Instead, the inquiry must focus on the dependability of the promise made. Big Bear, 825 F.2d at 1383; Wirtz, 377 F.2d at 116. 43 The judge's findings and other evidence in the record raise doubt as to the reliability of the Shirks' promise. They were repeat offenders of the Act. The district court found that, in the case at bar, they had violated the recordkeeping and overtime provisions of the Act. It found that the Shirks had knowledge that their employees were working overtime without compensation, but that they believed they could avoid liability for overtime under the FLSA by instructing their employees that overtime would not be authorized. Mr. Shirk testified in his deposition that he continued the practice of having employees sign a form that stated that no overtime would be authorized. Yet, the district court specifically found it hard to believe that the Shirks seriously prefer[red] that their employees not work overtime given the amount and nature of the work they had to do. 44 It thus appears from the record that the Shirks may continue the same practices that led to their liability in this case: instructing their employees not to work overtime under circumstances in which it is likely that their employees will continue to work overtime rather than leave important tasks undone. We cannot find in the district court's analysis adequate consideration of the factors weighing in favor of injunctive relief in this case. We therefore remand with instructions to reexamine this issue in light of our holdings in Big Bear and Chala.