Opinion ID: 2623203
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Liquidated Damages and Prejudgment Interest Under the FLSA

Text: We next consider Providence's arguments on cross-appeal. Providence first contends that the trial court erred when it awarded Hutka both liquidated damages and prejudgment interest. In support of this contention, Providence cites the United States Supreme Court's decision in Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil , [45] as well as a long line of FLSA cases that have held that a plaintiff cannot recover both liquidated damages and prejudgment interest under the FLSA because [s]uch awards compensate an employee twice for delay in receiving back wages. [46] Hutka argues that Providence waived its right to contest the damages award on appeal. [47] Providence only briefly raised the point within a footnote in an unrelated pre-trial opposition to Hutka's motion to supplement the record with her partially admitted exhibit called Elizabeth Hutka  Wage Claim Calculations. [48] But Providence failed to seek a ruling on this issue or include this point in its objection to the proposed judgment. Arguments not raised in the trial court are waived and will not be considered on appeal, except to the extent that plain error has been committed. [49] We determine that Providence's footnote in a response to an unrelated motion did not constitute a properly raised objection. Therefore, Providence waived its right to contest the damages award on appeal. Providence argues that even if it did not raise this issue below, the dual award would constitute plain error, subject to review at any stage of the proceedings. Plain error exists where an obvious mistake has been made. [50] The FLSA cases decided since Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil uniformly hold that a dual recovery is not allowed [51] and that an award of prejudgment interest cannot be made in addition to an award of liquidated damages. The resolution of this issue under the FLSA differs from our approach under the AWHA, [52] and Hutka has cited no authority to refute Providence's argument that the FLSA prohibits double recovery. The award of both liquidated damages and prejudgment interest constitutes plain error. We therefore determine that under the FLSA, Hutka's additional prejudgment interest award amounts to double recovery of $10,584.86, and should be vacated.