Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The full case caption appears at the end of this opinion. GARWOOD, Circuit Judge: Present and former employees of the Sheriff’s Department in Madison County, Mississippi (collectively, Sheriff’sEmployees), brought this suit against defendants-appellees Madison County, Mississippi, individual members of MadisonCounty’s Board of Supervisors, and Jessie Hopkins, in his official capacity as Madison County Sheriff (collectively,Madison County). The Sheriff’s Employees alleged, inter alia, that Madison County violated the Fair Labor StandardsAct (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. � 201 et seq., by refusing to pay them owed overtime compensation. In response, MadisonCounty asserted a third-party claim for indemnity against appellant Jessie Hopkins, in his individual capacity (Hopkins).Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Sheriff’s Employees on their FLSA claims andin favor of Madison County on its indemnification claim against Hopkins. Madison County then settled with the Sheriff’sEmployees, and, pursuant to its earlier ruling, the district court ordered Hopkins to indemnify Madison County for theamount of the settlement and for its attorneys’ fees and expenses. Hopkins appeals. We reverse. Factual and Procedural History In December 1995, the Department of Labor began investigating reports of unpaid overtime accrued by employees of theMadison County Sheriff’s Department. On September 5, 1996, before the Department of Labor completed itsinvestigation, the Sheriff’s Employees filed suit in federal district court against Madison County, Mississippi, and theindividual members of Madison County’s Board of Supervisors, [FOOTNOTE 1] alleging they were owed unpaid overtimecompensation under the FLSA. The Sheriff’s Employees later amended their complaint to include, inter alia, claimsunder 42 U.S.C. � 1983 for deprivations of property rights in wages for work performed and for violations of the EqualProtection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and to name Jessie Hopkins, in his official capacity as Madison CountySheriff, as a defendant in the action. In its answer, Madison County filed a third-party claim seeking indemnification fromHopkins individually on the basis that he was an employer or joint employer of the Sheriff’s Employees and individuallyresponsible for any unpaid overtime owed to them. Hopkins then counterclaimed against Madison County, alleging thatMadison County’s third-party claim against him was brought in retaliation for his cooperation with the Sheriff’s Employeesin their attempts to obtain unpaid overtime. After the Sheriff’s Employees named Sheriff Hopkins in his official capacity as a defendant, Hopkins’s attorney filed ananswer on behalf of Sheriff Hopkins in his official capacity, admitting all of the substantive allegations made by theSheriff’s Employees. Madison County subsequently filed a motion to strike this answer and submitted its own answer onbehalf of Sheriff Hopkins in his official capacity, denying the Sheriff’s Employees’ claims. In response, Hopkins moved todisqualify Madison County’s counsel, for allegedly filing responses without consulting with him and that were directlyinconsistent with earlier positions he espoused. The district court entered an order striking Hopkins’s answer and denyingthe motion to disqualify. The same counsel continued to represent both Madison County and Sheriff Hopkins in his officialcapacity throughout the litigation, including this appeal. Following discovery, all parties moved for partial summary judgment. The district court granted the motions in part,dismissing Hopkins’s retaliation claim against Madison County and all of the Sheriff’s Employees’ claims, except thoseunder the FLSA. Additionally, the district court ruled that Madison County and Hopkins individually were both”employers” under the FLSA. A bifurcated bench trial proceeded. Beginning on March 23, 1998, the district court conducted the first half of the trial todetermine liability under the FLSA and Madison County’s third-party indemnification action. On March 25, 1998, thedistrict court found Madison County violated the FLSA by refusing to pay the Sheriff’s Employees overtime. In addition,the district court concluded that Madison County’s refusal to pay overtime was willful and not in good faith, therebyextending the statute of limitations to three years (instead of two), 29 U.S.C. � 255, and permitting an award of liquidateddamages, 29 U.S.C. � 260. Applying Mississippi common law to Madison County’s third-party claim against Hopkins,the district court determined that Hopkins was primarily responsible for the unpaid overtime and ordered Hopkins toindemnify Madison County for any judgment Madison County would pay to the Sheriff’s Employees for the FLSAviolations. Pending the damages phase of the trial, Madison County settled with the Sheriff’s Employees for $750,000. Pursuant toits previous ruling on the indemnification claim, the district court then entered judgment in favor of Madison Countyagainst Hopkins for $750,000. Madison County subsequently filed a motion to recover attorneys’ fees and expenses fromHopkins. Relying again on Mississippi common law, the district court granted Madison County its attorneys’ fees andexpenses, which totaled $264,430.32. Hopkins appeals. Discussion On appeal, Hopkins asserts the following claims of error: (1) he was not an “employer” under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. �203(d); (2) the FLSA preempts the application of Mississippi common law indemnification; (3) the district courtmisapplied Mississippi indemnity law; and (4) the district court should have disqualified Madison County’s counsel fromrepresenting any party in the suit. We agree that the district court erred in its application of Mississippi law. Because thisconclusion relieves Hopkins of the judgment entered against him, we need not address the other issues presented in thisappeal. In this appeal from a bench trial, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. See Odom v. Frank, 3F.3d 839, 843 (5th Cir. 1993). We review de novo the district court’s determination of law, whether federal or state.See Gardes Directional Drilling v. U.S. Turnkey Exploration Co., 98 F.3d 860, 864 (5th Cir. 1996); see also SalvaRegina College v. Russell, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 1225 (1991) (“The obligation of responsible appellate review and theprinciples of a cooperative judicial federalism underlying Erie [R. Co. v. Tompkins, 58 S.Ct. 817 (1938)] require thatcourts of appeals review the state-law determinations of district courts de novo.”). Madison County does not contend that the FLSA, federal common law, or Mississippi statutory law provide for itsindemnification claim. Therefore, the only remaining basis for indemnification lies in Mississippi common law. Accordingly,Mississippi substantive law governs Madison County’s common law indemnification claim against Hopkins. Whenadjudicating claims for which state law provides the rules of decision, we are bound to apply the law as interpreted by thestate’s highest court. See Transcontinental Gas v. Transportation Ins. Co., 953 F.2d 985, 988 (5th Cir. 1992). If thestate’s highest court has not spoken on the particular issue, “it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can,what the highest court of the state would decide.” Id. When making such an Erie guess, we are bound by an intermediatestate appellate court decision unless “convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decideotherwise.” First Nat’l Bank of Durant v. Trans Terr Corp., 142 F.3d 802, 809 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotationsand footnote omitted). However, “we will not expand state law beyond its presently existing boundaries.” Rubinstein v.Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 172 (5th Cir. 1994) (footnote omitted); see also Johnson v. Sawyer, 47 F.3d 716, 729 (5th Cir.1995) (en banc) (“We have long followed the principle that we will not create ‘innovative theories of recovery or defense’under local law, but will rather merely apply it ‘as it currently exists.’”) (quoting Galindo v. Precision American Corp.,754 F.2d 1212, 1217 (5th Cir. 1985) and citing several other decisions of this Court); 19 Charles Alan Wright et al.,Federal Practice and Procedure � 4507, at 207 (2d ed. 1996) (“Nor is it the function of the federal court to expand theexisting scope of state law.”). By seeking indemnification from Hopkins, Madison County has petitioned the federal courtto do just that–expand the existing scope of Mississippi law; we decline the invitation. The district court ordered Hopkins to indemnify Madison County for the judgment entered in favor of the Sheriff’sEmployees, as per the settlement agreement, and for its attorneys’ fees and costs. The district court considered MadisonCounty and Hopkins to be joint tortfeasors, based on its conclusions that each was an employer of the Sheriff’sEmployees and that each violated the FLSA by causing the accrual of unpaid overtime-Hopkins by scheduling theSheriff’s Employees’ shifts and duties and by maintaining their personnel records, and Madison County by willfully refusingto appropriate funds to pay overtime once accrued. The district court then applied the principles of non-contractualimplied indemnity between joint tortfeasors as set forth by the Mississippi Supreme Court: “The general rule governing implied indemnity for tort liability is that a joint tort feasor, whose liability is secondary asopposed to primary, or is based upon imputed or passive negligence, as opposed to active negligence or is negativenegligence as opposed to positive negligence, may be entitled, upon an equitable consideration, to shift his responsibilityto another joint tort feasor. However, where the fault of each is equal in grade and similar in character, the doctrine ofimplied indemnity is not available since no one should be permitted to base a cause of action on his own wrong. Thus, thedetermination of whether or not indemnity should be allowed must of necessity depend upon the facts of each case. . . . Two critical prerequisites are generally necessary for the invocation of non-contractual implied indemnity in Mississippi:(1) The damages which the claimant seeks to shift are imposed upon him as a result of some legal obligation to the injuredperson; and (2) it must appear that the claimant did not actively or affirmatively participate in the wrong.” Homes Ins. Co.of N.Y. v. Atlas Tank Mfg. Co., Inc., 230 So.2d 549, 551 (Miss. 1970) (citing Bush v. City of Laurel, 215 So.2d 256(Miss. 1968); Southwest Miss. Elec. Power Ass’n v. Harragill, 182 So.2d 220 (Miss. 1966)). With these principles in mind, the district court concluded that Madison County engaged in secondary negligence, whileHopkins’s actions constituted primary negligence. These findings provided the basis for ordering Hopkins to indemnifyMadison County. [FOOTNOTE 2] In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court stated: “While there are no judicial precedents directly addressing the issue of whether a county board of supervisors may recover indemnification from a sheriff for violation of the FLSA, the Court is persuaded by the logic of Mississippi cases in which defendants have sought indemnification from joint tortfeasors.” However, as the Mississippi Supreme Court cautioned in Atlas Tank, “the determination of whether or not indemnityshould be allowed must of necessity depend upon the facts of each case.” Id. Madison County fails to cite, and ourindependent research fails to disclose, any Mississippi case in which an employee of a Mississippi governmental entity hasbeen held liable in tort type indemnity or contribution to his governmental entity employer. [FOOTNOTE 3] Because no authoritysupports the extension of such non-contractual implied indemnity to this context, we will not either, particularly given thecountervailing considerations suggested by Mississippi statutory law and the substantial questions of federal preemption,as noted in the margin. [FOOTNOTE 4] See Johnson v. Sawyer, 47 F.3d at 729 & n.28. Conclusion Finding no authority recognizing under Mississippi law a tort type indemnification claim by a public entity against a publicemployee for acts in the course and scope of employment, we reverse the district court’s judgment for Madison Countyand render judgment for Hopkins on Madison County’s third-party indemnification claim, and on its claim for attorneys’fees and expenses, against him. Accordingly, we do not reach the remaining points raised by Hopkins. For the reasonsstated, the judgment below isREVERSED AND RENDERED. :::FOOTNOTES::: FN1 The Sheriff’s Employees later voluntarily dismissed their claims against the individual board members. FN2 We need not and do not resolve whether the district court properly determined Madison County to be a secondarytortfeasor, and Hopkins a primary one, despite the district court’s parallel conclusion that Madison County “willfully failedto pay [the Sheriff's Employees] overtime as required under the FLSA.” FN3 No case cited to us by Madison County addressed the prospect of a public employee indemnifying a public entity. SeeHome Ins. Co. of N.Y., 230 So.2d at 554-55 (affirming a trial court’s determination not to order an employer toindemnify a utility company); Bush, 215 So.2d at 260 (permitting indemnity in favor of a municipality against itsindependent contractor); Southwest Miss. Elec. Power Ass’n, 182 So.2d at 468 (addressing a company’s claim forindemnity against a truck dealership and a break repair shop). FN4 Although we need not and do not ultimately resolve the issue, Mississippi law, as Hopkins argues, may in any eventimmunize him from Madison County’s state common law indemnification claim or may indicate a public policy againstimposition of tort liability on governmental employees for actions in the course and scope of their employment. See Miss.Code Ann. � 11-46-9; Mississippi Transp. Comm’n v. Jenkins, 699 So.2d 597, 599-600 (Miss. 1997) (indicating thatMississippi’s Sovereign Immunity-Tort Claims–Act’s provisions apply to indemnity and contribution actions).Additionally, although we do not decide the matter, there is a bona fide question whether the FLSA permits theapplication of a state-law based indemnity remedy benefitting employers. See LeCompte v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 780F.2d 1260, 1264 (5th Cir. 1986) (refusing to apply a state-law cause of action for indemnity, in context of defendantemployer’s counterclaim against two of plaintiff-employees suing for FLSA overtime, because it would conflict with goalsof FLSA and “would deprive them [counter-defendants] of overtime compensation to which the federal statute otherwiseentitles them”); see also Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F.3d 132, 144 (2d Cir. 1999) (“[T]he FLSA’s remedialscheme is sufficiently comprehensive as to preempt state law” with respect to contribution or indemnification claims byemployers.).
Barfield, et al. v. Madison Co., et al. v. Hopkins IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Nos. 98-60636 & 98-60610 TERRY BARFIELD, ET AL, Plaintiffs, versus MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; KARL BANKS; J.L. MCCULLOUGH; DAVID RICHARDSON; LOUISESPIVEY; LUTHER WALDROP, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs, Counter Defendants-Appellees; versus JESSIE HOPKINS, In His Individual Capacity, Third Party Defendant, Counter Claimant-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi May 10, 2000 Before POLITZ, GARWOOD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

Premium Subscription

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now

Team Accounts

Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now

Bundle Subscriptions

Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now

GlobeSt. Multifamily Spring 2023

March 27, 2023 - March 28, 2023
Miami, FL

Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers & financiers at THE MULTIFAMILY EVENT OF THE YEAR!

Learn More

The Asia Legal Awards (ASLA) 2023

March 30, 2023

Where the region's top lawyers, law firms and in-house teams will gather to celebrate their most stellar achievements of the year.

Learn More

GlobeSt Net Lease Spring 2023

April 03, 2023 - April 04, 2023
New York

This conference brings together the industry's most influential & knowledgeable real estate executives from the net lease sector.

Learn More

Associate Attorney

Looking for an Associate Attorney with 2 to 5 years experience to handle Labor and Employment Law, Pension Appeals and Workers Compensation....

Apply Now ›

Health Law Associate CT

Health Law Associate CT Shipman is seeking an associate to join our national longstanding health law practice. Candidates must have t...

Apply Now ›


Regional mid-sized firm with diverse civil litigation practice seeking hardworking and dedicated attorneys with 1-5 years experience for it...

Apply Now ›



Lawyers of Distinction would like to announce...

View Announcement ›



Snyder Sarno D'Aniello Maceri & daCosta would like to announce that...

View Announcement ›




View Announcement ›