West v. Anne Arundel County, Md.
| Decision Date | 18 February 1998 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 96-1251,96-1280,s. 96-1251 |
| Citation | 137 F.3d 752 |
| Parties | 135 Lab.Cas. P 33,647, 4 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 641 John D. WEST, on behalf of himself and all other employees of Anne Arundel County Maryland similarly situated, et al; Marianne C. Anderson; Michael C. Andresky; Susan L. Bailey; Brian L. Bond; Charles W. Boyer; Richard A. Brock; Daniel Brown; Anthony W. Burke, Sr.; Tracy L. Burke; Guy Steven Childers; Kim J. Cissna; Riccardo Colella; Larry P. Collison; Michael Albert Connor; Michael E. Cox, Jr.; Timothy Crawford; Arnita Y. Dunham; Michele Delalla; Grafton G. Deitz, Jr.; James H. Edwards, Jr.; Mara L. Eicens; Wayne Eisenhardt; Karen Estepp; Douglas G. Fishel, Jr.; Terry A. Gero; James L. Glime; James E. Goetz; Jeffrey P. Gormley; John Greene; Kathleen D. Grote; Russell Lloyd Harris; Sharon M. Henry; Michaez William Herz; Lisa A. Housand; Joseph M. Huber; William W. Isennock; Daniel L. Jarzynski; C. Edward Jett; Robert Frederick Johnson; Stephen E. Jones; Richard Allen Joy; Clifford C. Kooser, II; James David Kruger; Douglas P. Marshall; Michael J. Marsiglia; William L. Merson; Timothy L. Mikules; Michael Steven Moore, Jr.; Greg A. Novak; George L. Pfeffer, Jr.; Noldon Pope; Mark Steven Praschak; Patrick O. Prendergast; Carol Ann Rabinowitz; Cynthia E. Ray; Hurshel W. Shank, Jr.; Cecilia W. Sledgeski; Gregory Lee Smith, Iii; Randolph S. Spies; Thomas Stag; Peter G. Staley; Logan Starr, Sr.; Frank R. Stamm; David Sterling; Michael Swain; Keith D. Swindle; John Steven Thompson; Timothy Aldyn Tucker; Robert T. Vaccaro, Jr.; Robert Valderas; Marcus D. Wallace; William H. Ward; Khris Edwin Wildt; William Mark Wilhelm; David K. Williams; Raymond J. Schmidt; Kimberly S. Schneider; Michael Andrew Smith; John B. Wellman; Robert A. Harsh; Robert Anthony Mead; James Carroll Rostek, Sr.; Rand J. Lindgren; Raymond Gene Cullison, Jr.; Dawn Rodriguez; David R. Klinger; William H. Phillips; Bruce E. Fritz; Charles Edward Yetter; R. Thomas Crow, Ii; Debbie Schueler; William A. Cooper, Jr.; Steven K. Frye; Michael C. Huffman; Joseph |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
ARGUED: Gail Thuman Watson, Assistant County Attorney, Anne Arundel County Office of Law, Annapolis, MD, for Appellant. John D. Maddox, Arter & Hadden, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae. Francis Joseph Collins, Kahn, Smith & Collins, P.A., Baltimore, MD, for Appellees. Stephanie Robin Marcus, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Intervenor. ON BRIEF: David A. Plymyer, Deputy County Attorney, Anne Arundel County Office of Law, Annapolis, MD, for Appellant. Thomas H. Odom, Terri L. Bowman, Arter & Hadden, Washington, DC; Otho M. Thompson, City Solicitor, James S. Ruckle, Jr., Associate City Solicitor, Baltimore City Law Department, Baltimore, MD, for Amicus Curiae. Joel A. Smith, Andrew H. Kahn, Kahn, Smith & Collins, P.A., Baltimore, MD; Laurence Gold, Washington, DC, for Appellees. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Mark B. Stern, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Intervenor.
Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Circuit Judge, and NORTON, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part by published opinion. Chief Judge WILKINSON wrote the opinion, in which Judge HAMILTON and Judge NORTON joined.
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Printz v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997), this court requested supplemental briefing on the following question: "In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Printz v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997), whether the Fair Labor Standards Act may be constitutionally applied to the salary determinations at issue in this case." The parties briefed and argued the constitutionality of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., as applied to state and local governments. Anne Arundel County argued vigorously that the present Supreme Court would hold the FLSA violative of the Tenth Amendment as it applies to state and local government employees. Our task, however, is not to predict what the Supreme Court might do but rather to follow what it has done. In light of Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 105 S.Ct. 1005, 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985), we must uphold the constitutionality of applying the FLSA to Anne Arundel County in this case.
With respect to the merits of plaintiffs' FLSA claims, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the district court.
John West and his fellow plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Anne Arundel County Fire Department. They are known as Emergency Medical Technicians, or EMTs. Between 1987 and 1995, each was assigned to the Fire Department's Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Division in the job classification of Firefighter/ Emergency Medical Technician-Ambulance, Firefighter/Cardiac Rescue Technician, or Firefighter/Emergency Medical Technician-Paramedic.
Like all County firefighters, the EMTs completed a twenty-one-week Fire Academy, which included training in all aspects of the Department's emergency service work--firefighting, emergency medical services, rescue, and hazardous materials operations. Once they were assigned to the EMS Division, plaintiffs worked the same shift schedule and were integrated into the same command structure as other firefighters. When responding to a call, however, EMTs were generally prohibited from active participation in fire suppression in order to keep clean for their medical duties.
The employment relationship between the Fire Department and all firefighters, including EMS personnel, was governed by the same union contract. Firefighters and EMTs were compensated for overtime hours according to the partial exemption for fire protection and law enforcement employees in section 7(k) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207(k), rather than the general forty-hour standard set forth in section 7(a) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).
Plaintiff EMTs filed suit challenging their classification as fire protection employees and seeking lost overtime pay, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees. The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment, finding that they did not fall under the section 7(k) exemption. The court rejected the County's argument that plaintiffs who had been Captains, Field Lieutenants, Training Lieutenants, or Paramedics were exempt from overtime requirements as "bona fide executive, administrative, or professional" personnel. See 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). And the court denied the County's defense of good faith under 29 U.S.C. § 259(a). Plaintiffs were awarded prejudgment interest but no liquidated damages, and the court applied a two-year statute of limitations to their claims. Both parties appeal. 1
In this case we are asked to apply the FLSA to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regan v. City of Charleston, C.A. No. 2:13–cv–3046–PMD.
...... See West v. Anne Arundel Cty., 137 F.3d 752, 760 (4th ... F.Supp.3d 548 LLC, 30 F.Supp.3d 404, 409 (D.Md.2014). "The FWW half-time calculation under ......
-
Regan v. City of Charleston, C.A. No.: 2:13–cv–3046–PMD
...... See West v. Anne Arundel Cty. , 137 F.3d 752, 760 (4th ...Scotts Co., 30 F.Supp.3d 404, 409 (D.Md.2014). "The FWW half-time calculation under ...The City bases its argument on Aiken v. County of Hampton, 977 F.Supp. 390 (D.S.C.1997), ......
-
Condon v. Reno, 97-2554
......; North Carolina Press Association; West . Virginia Press Association; ...Anne Arundel County, Md., 137 F.3d 752, 759-60 (4th ......
-
Cobra Natural Res., LLC v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 13–1406.
...... Robinson, Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Nancy E. Steffan, ... at Cobra's Mountaineer Mine in Mingo County until, on October 17, 2012, he was abruptly ... the nature of the action.” 1000 Friends of Md. v. Browner, 265 F.3d 216, 224 (4th Cir.2001). ...Anne Arundel Cnty., 137 F.3d 752, 760 (4th Cir.1998). ......
-
A Matter of Expectations: Interpreting the Statutory Preemption of Local Assistance to Federal Firearms Regulators
...Printz analysis already has been rejected or questioned as precedent by several lower federal courts. See West v. Anne Arundel County, 137 F.3d 752 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding Printz did not determine whether Fair Labor Standards Act applied to state and local government salary determinations)......