DAX STRATTMAN v. MATRANA PRODUCE INC (2025)

The appellant seeks review of the trial court's July 9, 2024 judgment, denying his claims that the appellee unfairly compensated him while participating in a work release program placement at the appellee's business. We affirm for the following reasons.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 7, 2023, the plaintiff/appellant, Dax Strattman, filed a “Petition For Back Pay of Shorted and/or Unpaid Wages Under La. R.S. 23:631 and La. C.C.P. art. 2592,” at the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court. In the filing, Mr. Strattman claimed that defendant/appellee Matrana's Produce, Inc. (“Matrana's”) failed to pay him wages as part of a work release program through the St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Office. Mr. Strattman argues that under La. R.S. 15:711(F) and 15:1111(G),¹ an inmate's wages in a work release program could not be less than the customary wages for an employee performing similar services. Mr. Strattman asserted that he was paid nine dollars per hour as an “order puller,” while non-work release order pullers were paid sixteen dollars or more for similar services. He also claimed he did not receive holiday pay or paid vacations like non-work release employees. Mr. Strattman estimated that he worked 1,777.24 regular hours and 51.76 overtime hours during his employment with Matrana's and sought $14,516.39 in “shorted, unpaid wages.”

Matrana's filed an exception of no cause of action on August 24, 2023, which the court denied on September 13, 2023. It filed an answer to the petition on September 28, 2023. The court rejected Mr. Strattman's claims in a judgment dated July 9, 2024, after a “Summary Proceeding” bench trial on January 11, 2024, and March 18, 2024. Mr. Strattman's timely appeal follows.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The Court committed a reversible error by ruling that Matrana's did not violate La. R.S. 15:711, based upon a finding that Mr. Strattman was not an “order puller.”

LAW AND ANALYSIS

La. R.S. 15:711(A) provides in relevant part that the sheriff of each parish is “authorized to establish and administer a work release program for inmates of any jail or prison under his jurisdiction.” La. R.S. 15:711(F) requires that “[t]he wages of an inmate so employed shall be not less than the customary wages for an employee performing similar services.” The record shows that the St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Office and Matrana's executed a “Transitional Work Program Employer Work Agreement” on April 3, 2018. In relevant part, Matrana's agreed to provide transitional workers a minimum of thirty-two hours per week at a rate of nine dollars per hour or “at the same rate as any free persons doing the same job.” Mr. Strattman applied directly to work for Matrana's on June 21, 2021. On July 1, 2021, Mr. Strattman submitted a “Nelson Coleman Correction Center Transitional Work Program Application” to work at Matrana's warehouse beginning on July 5, 2021, at a rate of nine dollars per hour. His job title on the application indicated “Warehouse.” “Job Description Documents” kept by Matrana's and introduced at trial suggest that Mr. Strattman was not an order puller but assisted in pulling orders, cleaning at the end of the workday, and “stacking/restacking” pallets.

The trial testimony

Sergeant Frank Cali testified that he had been second in command of the St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Office work release program. Part of his duties included finding businesses willing to participate in the program. He met with Matrana's and negotiated a nine-dollar-per-hour contract for inmates in the work release program. Sergeant Cali confirmed that an inmate must notify him or Lieutenant Beard of any complaints concerning an assignment. Mr. Strattman never complained to Sergeant Cali about the work at Matrana's.

Anna Matrana testified that she had been the CEO of Matrana's Produce for six years. She explained that work release employees did not receive benefits from Matrana's because the inmates were considered wards of the State. The company initially decided to participate in the work release program because the owners felt it suited the community. The Sheriff's office presented the agreement for Matrana's participation; Matrana's decided to pay more than the eight dollars per hour on the form. Ms. Matrana emphasized that the work release participants were not employees, as Matrana's had no control over them. The company could not require work release participants to show up for work or reprimand them. Ms. Matrana also provided details about the duties of an order puller, including that he was to arrive at the warehouse at 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. every morning before shipping the bulk of the orders by 6:00 a.m. Those in the work release program never worked a night shift. Ms. Matrana also said that any orders pulled during the day were small, and program workers assisted with that task. She also emphasized that if someone on work release was not actively working, he would not be paid and would be required to report to the break room and wait for transport by the sheriff. Matrana's goal was to assist workers in the program by giving them additional tasks to earn more money. Ms. Matrana said that the company consistently paid the money under the Employer Work Agreement.

Andrew LaBrano testified at trial that he had been employed by Matrana's for twenty-five years and was the warehouse manager. He was the contact for the work release program. He described the various jobs in the warehouse performed by work release participants. Mr. LaBrano emphasized that those in the work release program are not Matrana's employees. Mr. LaBrano testified that Mr. Strattman was never hired as an order puller and did not obtain that position while there through work release. However, Mr. Strattman assisted the order pullers, and it was a common practice for work release employees to assist in different areas of Matrana's.

Joshua Smith testified that he had been employed by Matrana's for two-and –a-half years through the Inmate Work Release Program administered by the St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Office. His pay at Matrana's was nine dollars per hour, which he believed was the same wage others in the work release program received. Mr. Smith worked mainly on the “onion crew” and occasionally pulled orders and performed general maintenance in the warehouse. He clarified that he was not an order puller but sometimes assisted with that job. Mr. Smith worked with Mr. Strattman at Matrana's and did not recall that Mr. Strattman ever complained about work conditions. After his release from prison, Mr. Smith was offered a full-time job by Matrana's as an order puller.

Ryan LeCompte testified that he worked as a “receiver” at Matrana's while Mr. Strattman worked there as an order filler. He recalled that Mr. Strattman did the same work as order pullers. Mr. LeCompte said that he worked around order pullers and that pullers sometimes worked the onion machine. If order pullers needed help, they used Mr. Strattman. Mr. LeCompte explained that he had no independent basis to know that Mr. Strattman was an order puller outside of being told so by Mr. Strattman himself. He saw Mr. Strattman do mechanic work as an order filler, work on the onion machine, wrap palettes in shipping, and work outside cutting grass.

James Mauk testified that he knew Mr. Strattman from working with him at Matrana's. Mr. Mauk was an order puller, and Mr. Strattman assisted him by showing him how to stack and wrap palettes. He believed that Mr. Strattman was an order puller who worked with other work release order pullers.

Mr. Strattman testified that he worked for Matrana's as part of the work release program from July 5, 2021, through June 10, 2022, at the rate of nine dollars per hour. He claimed that his title was “order puller.” Mr. Strattman said that the position required him to pick up order slips from the shipping office, get a power pallet jack and wooden pallet, and go through the warehouse to put items on the pallet. After filling an order, they bring the pallet to a staging area for shipping and distribution. Mr. Strattman also worked on the onion machine, loading the onions and placing them on a pallet after bagging them. His other duties included cleaning the attic, painting, and pressure washing, all of which he claimed “free”² order pullers were not required to do. He made his initial demand for payment on May 17, 2023; when subsequent communications with Matrana's were unsuccessful, he filed the instant lawsuit. He did not tell anyone about the alleged poor treatment he received and admitted that he applied for a job there as a free person.

The trial court noted in its reasons for judgment ³ that the testimony of Ana Matrana, James Mauk, and Ryan Lecompte established that work release program participants performed a variety of duties while on-site at Matrana's including, but not limited to, assisting with the organization and bagging of orders, stacking inventory, cleaning machinery, and pressure washing the premises. The trial court also pointed out that the wage agreement signed by Strattman assigned him a job title of “warehouse,” and the employee payroll information provided by Matrana's listed Mr. Strattman as a work release participant ineligible for holiday accruals. Based on those factors, the trial court concluded that Mr. Strattman was not an “order puller” while working at Matrana's. The Court further found that Matrana's paid Mr. Strattman all amounts then due under the terms of his employment as a work release participant assigned to the warehouse.

Standard of review

The scope of Mr. Strattman's work duties for Matrana's is a finding of fact. Appellate courts review the findings of fact under the manifest error standard of review. Mann v. Louisiana-1 Gaming, 21-83 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/15/21), 334 So.3d 894, 898. To reverse a fact-finder's determination, the appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis for the trial court's finding does not exist and that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong. Rabalais v. Nash, 06-999 (La. 3/9/07), 952 So.2d 653, 657. The appellate court must not reweigh the evidence or substitute its factual findings because it would have decided the case differently. Jones v. Mkt. Basket Stores, Inc., 22-00841 (La. 3/17/23), 359 So.3d 452, 463. When the court bases the determination on the credibility of witnesses, the manifest error-clearly wrong standard demands great deference to the trier of fact's findings, for only the fact-finder can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener's understanding and belief in what is said. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 845 (La. 1989). Where the fact-finder bases the decision crediting the testimony of one or two or more witnesses, that finding can virtually never be manifestly erroneous.

After a review of the record, we cannot say the trial court's classification of Mr. Strattman's employment at Matrana's through the work release program is manifestly erroneous. The testimony and evidence introduced at trial demonstrated that Mr. Strattman's work release assignment at Matrana's warehouse consisted of several duties, which sometimes included assisting the order pullers. This practice was consistent with the standard practice for all work release employees to help at different areas of Matrana's. At no time was Mr. Strattman hired or later designated as an order puller himself. Therefore, he was correctly compensated under the “Transitional Work Program Employer Work Agreement” at nine dollars per hour.

DECREE

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED

FIFTH CIRCUIT

101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)

POST OFFICE BOX 489

GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054

www.fifthcircuit.org

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CHIEF JUDGE

FREDERICKA H. WICKER

JUDE G. GRAVOIS

MARC E. JOHNSON

STEPHEN J. WINDHORST

JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.

SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL

TIMOTHY S. MARCEL

JUDGES

CURTIS B. PURSELL CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK

LINDA M. WISEMAN FIRST DEPUTY CLERK

MELISSA C. LEDET DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF

(504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY MARCH 12, 2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

CURTIS B. PURSELL CLERK OF COURT

24-CA-447

E-NOTIFIED

24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)

R. CHRISTOPHER COX, III (DISTRICT JUDGE)

LAURIE B. YOUNG (APPELLEE)

MAILED

RICHARD H. BARKER, IV (APPELLANT)

ATTORNEY AT LAW

601 POYDRAS STREET

SUITE 2345

NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

DAX STRATTMAN #10762800 (APPELLANT)

JEFFERSON PARISH CORRECTIONAL

CENTER

P. O. BOX 388

GRETNA, LA 70054

FOOTNOTES

1.   La. R.S. 15:711(F) states:F. The wages of an inmate so employed shall be not less than the customary wages for an employee performing similar services.La. R.S. 15:1111 (G) provides:G. The wages of an inmate so employed shall be not less than the customary wages for an employee performing similar services.

2.   The word “free” was used throughout the proceedings to refer to Matrana employees who were not in the work release program.

3.   Appellate courts do not review reasons for judgment as a part of the judgment itself. La. C.C.P. art. 1918; Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Government, 07-1311 (La. 8/31/07), 963 So.2d 378, 379. The written reasons for judgment are merely an explication of the trial court's determinations. State in the Interest of Mason, 356 So.2d 530, 532 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1977). The Louisiana Supreme Court has held, however, that a court of appeal can use reasons for judgment to gain insight into the district court's judgment, and we refer to them now for that purpose. See, Wooley v. Lucksinger, 09-0571 (La. 4/1/11), 61 So.3d 507, 572.

JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. JUDGE