United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
M. Warner Magistrate Judge.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND
WADDOUPS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
November 16, 2017, an in camera hearing was conducted in this
matter to: (1) address the Plaintiff / Counterclaim Defendant
XPO Logistics, Inc. (“XPO”) and Defendant /
Counterclaim Plaintiff Adam Sudweeks'
(“Sudweeks”) (collectively the “Settling
Parties”) Joint Motion for In Camera Hearing Regarding
Approval of FLSA Settlement Agreement (“Motion for
Approval”); and (2) to determine whether the Settling
Parties had met the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) requirements for Court approval of the
settlement. XPO was represented by Robert H. Smeltzer of
Howard & Howard. Sudweeks was present and represented by
Susan B. Motschiedler of Parsons Behle and Latimer.
reviewed and considered the Settling Parties' briefing
and heard the arguments presented at the November 16, 2017
hearing, the Court hereby enters its Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and ORDERS as follows.
provides logistics services, including truck brokerage and
transportation, last mile logistics, intermodal, contract
logistics, ground and air expediting, drayage, global
forwarding, and managed transportation.
Sudweeks worked for XPO as an account manager on freight
logistics accounts from approximately December 2013 to June
an account manager, Sudweeks was paid a salary plus
Sudweeks' initial salary at XPO was $35, 000 per year,
and later $42, 000 per year.
his position as an account manager, Sudweeks sought out new
potential logistics customers, provided quotes for current or
future freight shipments, entered shipments into XPO's
computer systems, and serviced existing customers by giving
them updates on shipments in transit.
Sudweeks was also responsible for creating and keeping
accurate administrative records relating to the shipments,
including things like bills of lading and other shipping
terminated Sudweeks' employment on June 29, 2015.
or around July 21, 2015, Sudweeks became employed at Leeway
initiated this action by filing a four-count Complaint for
Preliminary Injunction and Other Relief against Sudweeks and
another former XPO employee, Aaron Peterson
(“Peterson”), and their subsequent employer
Count I alleged that Sudweeks and Peterson violated their
respective Employment Agreements with XPO by going to work
for Leeway, its competitor in the business of providing
third-party logistics services; soliciting its customers; and
using or disclosing its confidential information.
Count II alleged that, while still employed, Sudweeks and
Peterson breached their fiduciary duties to XPO by operating
a separate company called ASAP on XPO's time and with its
Count III alleged that Leeway intentionally interfered with
XPO's economic relations by employing Sudweeks and
Peterson in violation of the Employment Agreements and
putting them in a position to solicit XPO's customers and
trade on its Confidential Information.
Count IV alleged that Defendants misappropriated XPO's
response to the Complaint, Sudweeks filed a partial answer,
as well as a three-count Counterclaim, alleging: (a) a
collective action against XPO for unpaid overtime per
§207(a)(1) of the FLSA; (b) breach of contract (in the
alternative); and (3) breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing (in the alternative).
Sudweeks amended his FLSA counterclaim on two occasions
thereafter, eventually dropping the collective action and
pursuing only his individual overtime claims and the two
Nature of the Settling Parties' Dispute
Settling Parties dispute whether Sudweeks was exempt from the
overtime provision of Section 207(a)(1) of the FLSA.
Sudweeks alleges that, as an account manager on freight
logistics accounts, XPO misclassified his job position ...