A federal appeals court has brought a mortgage underwriter’s lawsuit back to life after the case was dismissed more than two years ago.
Patricia Thompson went to work as a mortgage underwriter for Security Atlantic Mortgage Co. back in June 2009.
Shortly after joining the company, Thompson was assigned to a training class with Real Estate Mortgage Network which was presented to her as “a sister company of Security Atlantic.”
Allegedly prompted by a Department of Housing and Urban Development investigation into Atlantic Security’s practices, Thompson and many of her colleagues were asked by their supervisors to complete new job applications for REMN.
A federal lawsuit filed in 2011 by Thompson against Security Atlantic and REMN alleges that she and other underwriters, closers and HUD reviewers regularly worked more than eight hours a day and more than 40 hours a week.
For Thompson, this allegedly went on from June 2009 through Aug. 5, 2010, when she quit.
However, they never earned overtime pay. Employees were allegedly incorrectly informed that they were exempt from overtime requirements.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
But a federal judge in New Jersey granted a motion to dismiss by the defendants on Dec. 30, 2011.
Thompson appealed the dismissal and, in a decision dated April 3, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case.
The decision noted that the district court didn’t explain the basis for its decision to grant the motion to dismiss, which the appeals court said was presented by defendants who failed to “mount a serious argument for such dismissal.”
“The pleadings here put the corporate defendants on fair notice that the alleged violations began during Thompson’s employment with Security Atlantic and persisted throughout her relatively brief tenure with the two companies,” the decision stated.
Thompson provided enough information in her amended complaint to allow the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendants are liable for the alleged misconduct, the decision said.
