Opinion ID: 686722
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Post-investigation Damages

Text: 98 As discussed above, the Secretary sought to introduce evidence and win back wages for FLSA violations that had allegedly occurred after the DOL concluded its investigation at The Monitor. The district court allowed the evidence pending a final ruling on admissibility. Ultimately, the court excluded the evidence and refused to award monetary relief for any violations alleged to have occurred after January 25, 1980, approximately the last day of the period covered by the DOL investigation. With regard to this determination, the court stated: 99 The reason for this ... limitation is that, although plaintiff claims continuing violations of FLSA, the case was largely prepared by the defendants on the ground that violations, if any, did not continue beyond January 25, 1980. The court, having taken the matter under advisement, Tr. 1-43, 44, finds and rules that it would be unjust and inequitable to allow damages to be recovered for a period beyond January 25, 1980. 100 Newspapers of New England, Inc., 834 F.Supp. at 539 (citing Donovan v. Burger King Corp., 672 F.2d 221, 229 (1st Cir.1982)). 101 The Secretary argues that The Monitor was well aware that the complaint sought back wages for post-investigation violations and that The Monitor had ample time before trial to conduct discovery pertinent to this issue. Therefore, the Secretary contends, the district court's limitation of damages was an abuse of discretion. We disagree. The record contains ample support for the district court's determination that The Monitor was unfairly surprised by the Secretary's attempt to prove post-investigation violations at trial. Exhibit A attached to the Secretary's complaint accurately detailed the amount of back wages sought for each employee. Exhibit A did not indicate that the claimed wages would be revised at trial to reflect post-investigation violations. 20 The Pre-trial Order's summary of the Secretary's claims also did not reflect post-investigation damages. Rather, the Pre-trial Order stated that damages sought by the Secretary were only those contained in Exhibit A. Furthermore, the DOL compliance officer in charge of the case stated at his deposition that Exhibit A contained all the claims being brought by the Secretary. Counsel for the DOL failed to object to either the Pre-trial Order or the testimony of its compliance officer. The district court apparently found that this confluence of events led The Monitor to conduct its discovery on the reasonable belief that the Secretary did not intend to pursue back wages for post-investigation violations. 21 We do not find this to be an abuse of discretion. 102 Affirmed.