About BlueJay TMS
CASE No. 1:22-cv-455 2024-02-02 Brad TOOKER and Debra Hahn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BLUEJAY SOLUTIONS, INC., and e2open, LLC, Defendants. Helen Coleman, Rachhana Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs. Alan Lin, Desiree Brutocao, Edward Mason Smith, Cornell Smith Mierl Brutocao Burton, LLP, Austin, TX, Michael D. Almassian, Keller & Almassian PLC, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendant BlueJay Solutions Inc. Edward Mason Smith, Cornell Smith Mierl Brutocao Burton, LLP, Austin, TX, for Defendant e2open, LLC. Helen Coleman, Rachhana Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs. Alan Lin, Desiree Brutocao, Edward Mason Smith, Cornell Smith Mierl Brutocao Burton, LLP, Austin, TX, Michael D. Almassian, Keller & Almassian PLC, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendant BlueJay Solutions Inc. Edward Mason Smith, Cornell Smith Mierl Brutocao Burton, LLP, Austin, TX, for Defendant e2open, LLC. OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT J. JONKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. INTRODUCTION This is a collective action wage-and-hour case in which Plaintiffs Tooker and Hahn, former Logistics Coordinator (LC) employees of Defendant BlueJay, allege the company improperly treated them as exempt from federal overtime laws and thus deprived them of their overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). They, and nineteen other opt-in plaintiffs, sue BlueJay and Defendant e2open, LLC, which has since acquired BlueJay. On December 12, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for court-authorized notice (ECF No. 34). The Court subsequently approved a notice to the prospective opt-in plaintiffs and there are presently a total of twenty-one plaintiffs in this suit. Since then, both sides have filed motions relating to FLSA certification, the administrative exemption, and damages. Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for corrective notice. The Court heard argument on the motions on November 17, 2023, and ruled from the bench on some of them. Specifically, the Court denied the motions relating to FLSA certification and reserved ruling on the evidentiary issues until the final pretrial conference. The Court denied the portions of the motions for summary judgment relating to liquidated damages and willfulness, and took the remainder of the motions under advisement. What is left for decision are the summary judgment issues regarding the administrative exemption and the fluctuating workweek calculation with respect to damages. Also pending for decision is the motion for corrective notice. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the motion for corrective notice. The Court also concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on FLSA administrative classification. The Court further determines there are disputed fact issues that preclude summary judgment on the fluctuating workweek calculation of damages. BACKGROUND The summary judgment record from both sides details the organizational structure of BlueJay and e2open, and traces the events surrounding the classification decision leading to this lawsuit. Defendant BlueJay Solutions, which has since been acquired by Defendant e2open, LLC, provide logistics products and services for its customers. (Minner Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 99-3, PageID. 1274). BlueJay's Transportation Management System ("TMS") is one
Key features of the BlueJay TMS that are enabled through these drivers include:
- BlueJay Instructions (To make a pickup appointment):
- How to Flash Bluejay ESC Firmware and
- BlueJay Solutions Unveils MobileSTAR - IndMacDig
- WDGY Radio 92.1 - playlist by bluejay
- GitHub - saidinesh5/bluejay-configurator: Cross
- Bluejay - Bluetooth device manager - LinuxLinks
- /e/OS community bluejay download
At the company that are generating the day-to-day services customers pay for when they purchase LaaS rather than rely on the TMS software to handle the logistics themselves. The Logistics Coordinators are not engaged in any work or management functions aimed at the functional business operations of BlueJay or e2open; rather, they are engaged almost exclusively in providing services the business sells as LaaS. Applicable regulations from the Department of Labor provide that: [t]he phrase "directly related to the management or general business operations" refers to the type of work performed by the employee. To meet this requirement, an employee must perform work directly related to assisting with the running or servicing of the business, as distinguished, for example, from working on a manufacturing production line or selling a product in a retail or service establishment.Work directly related to management or general business operations includes, but is not limited to, work in functional areas such as tax; finance; accounting; budgeting; auditing; insurance; quality control; purchasing; procurement; advertising; marketing; research; safety and health; personnel management; human resources; employee benefits; labor relations; public relations, government relations; computer network, internet and database administration; legal and regulatory compliance; and similar activities. Some of these activities may be performed by employees who also would qualify for another exemption.An employee may qualify for the administrative exemption if the employee's primary duty is the performance of work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer's customers. Thus, for example, employees acting as advisers or consultants to their employer's clients or customers (as tax experts or financial consultants, for example) may be exempt. 29 C.F.R. § 541.201(a)-(c). Defendants point out, however, that for the administrative exemption to apply, it is not necessary that they prove the Logistics Coordinators work on the management or general business operations of BlueJay or e2open. It is enough that their duties relate to the "management or general business operations of ... the employer's customers." 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a). And applying the administrative-production dichotomy, Defendants reason, there can be no question that the Logistics Coordinators' primary job duties directly related to the management or general business operations of their customers. The Court disagrees. The summary judgment record shows that Plaintiffs' duties fall squarely into activities that are part of the output of the Defendants' business, not the running of the customers' operations. To be sure, the customers needed logistics to get their own products to market. But in buying LaaS, the customers effectively outsourced that function to Defendants. Because the customers bought the LaaS service package, they no longer had or needed their own logistics department. The Logistics Coordinators were not managing and could not manage this function for a customer's business operation because the customer's business no longer had such a function once they decided to outsource to Defendants and purchase LaaS. Defendants' own Logistics Coordinators then used Defendants' own TMS system to produce the service product that Defendants offered to their customers for an extra price. Logistics Coordinators,
