Plaintiffs say Providence waived defenses; bench weighs exemplary‑damages standards

The court devoted substantial time to questions about exemplary (double) damages and what defenses remained available to Providence. Plaintiffs’ counsel told the court Providence had affirmatively waived a good‑faith defense by withholding documents and limiting inquiry into the employer’s state of mind, making the bona-fide-defense unavailable. That, plaintiffs said, left Providence unable to show the factual basis needed to avoid exemplary damages.

Plaintiffs’ counsel argued the knowing‑submission defense also lacked evidentiary support in the record for most class members: she said there was no evidence an employee knew of a CBA provision and intentionally submitted to a violation. Defense counsel countered there was overwhelming evidence employees coded "NL" in time records, signed some waivers, and in certain groups preferred on‑duty breaks, undermining a showing of intent to deprive. The bench queried whether compliance with a CBA could rebut intent to deprive and whether any case supported punitive damages under those circumstances.