Beebe v. United States
Decision Date | 28 January 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 326-79C.,326-79C. |
Citation | 640 F.2d 1283 |
Parties | Nelson BEEBE et al., v. The UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Mitchell J. Notis, Washington, D. C., attorney of record for plaintiff. John R. Rosa, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Lenore C. Garon, Washington, D. C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen. Alice Daniel. Ramsey G. Cole, Jr., Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before COWEN, Senior Judge, and KASHIWA and BENNETT, Judges.
ON DEFENDANT'S AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs are current or retired firefighters who are or were employed by the Department of Agriculture at the Plum Island Disease Control Center (PIADC). Claiming that the government violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA or the Act), 29 U.S.C. sec. 201, et seq., by failing to pay them the full amount of overtime pay due them, they brought this action to recover back pay, plus liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The principal issue presented is whether the time allowed plaintiffs as eating and sleeping time during their regularly scheduled tours of duty should be included in the hours of work for computing their overtime pay under the FLSA. We answer this question in the affirmative and grant plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment to the extent of holding that they are entitled to recover the claimed overtime pay for periods not barred by the statute of limitations, plus attorneys' fees and costs. Since the claim for liquidated damages involves factual issues, that question, and a determination of the amount of overtime pay and attorneys' fees which plaintiffs are entitled to recover, are remanded for trial.
It was not until the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974, Pub.L. 93-259, 88 Stat. 55 (April 8, 1974) that the federal government, as an employer, became subject to the FLSA. Most federal employees who receive overtime pay under the Act are compensated under 29 U.S.C. sec. 207(a), which provides that no employer shall employ any employees for a longer work week than 40 hours, unless they receive compensation at a rate not less than 1½ times the regular rate for such excess hours of work.
Between the time the Act became applicable to federal employees on May 1, 1974, and until January 1, 1975, federal firefighters were exempted from coverage under the overtime provision of the FLSA. However, effective as of January 1, 1975, section 7(k) was added to the Act. It is codified in 29 U.S.C. as section 207(k) and provides in pertinent part:
Effective on January 1, 1976, "240 hours" in the section of law above was reduced to "232 hours" and as of January 1, 1977, "232 hours" was changed to "216 hours."
An explanation for the removal of the exemption and a statement of the Congressional purpose in enacting the above-quoted provision is contained in House Conference Report No. 93-953, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., which is reprinted in 1974 U.S.Code Cong. & Adm.News, vol. 2, pp. 2811, 2864. The Conference Report provides in pertinent part as follows:
The legislative history shows that the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA applicable to federal firefighters differ significantly from the FLSA overtime pay provisions for most other federal employees. First, the federal firefighters were exempt from the overtime pay provisions of the Act prior to January 1, 1975, while other federal employees were entitled to overtime compensation after May 1, 1974. Second, section 7(k) of the Act adopted a new standard for federal firefighters; it enables the employer to utilize "work periods" of not more than 28 days in determining the firefighters' entitlement to overtime pay, while the general overtime provision requires the computation of FLSA overtime entitlement for each "work week." Also, the FLSA overtime is payable to federal firefighters based upon the number of hours in their "tour of duty" that exceeds the number of hours specified in section 7(k), while other federal employees covered by the Act are entitled to overtime pay only for hours of work during which they are employed for more than 40 hours in a work week.
In making the federal government as an employer subject to the Act, Congress authorized the Civil Service Commission to administer the FLSA in the federal sector. Section 4(f) of the Act (29 U.S.C. sec. 204(f)).1
The administration of the Act with respect to federal firefighters was accomplished by the Civil Service Commission through the issuance of Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) Letter 551-5 in an advance edition of December 27, 1974, entitled "Instructions for Applying the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to Federal Employees Engaged in Fire Protection Activities or Law Enforcement Activities." Attachment 2 to FPM Letter 551-5 contained regulations giving effect to the special overtime provisions of section 7(k) of the Act. The following portions of attachment 2 are particularly pertinent to this action:
Prior to January 1, 1975, and in accordance with law in effect at that time, plaintiffs were paid under the "two-thirds rule." Under this judicially approved rule, 8 of every 24 hours of plaintiffs' tours of duty were excluded as non-compensable time. See Collins v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zumerling v. Marsh, Civ. A. No. 81-963.
...have the same work schedule over a 14 day period: 6 days on, 8 days off, a total of 144 hours worked. 16 See, e.g., Beebe v. United States, 640 F.2d 1283 (Cl.Ct.1981). 17 Further, Plaintiffs' argument that they could be subject to the regulation and therefore injured by it because they coul......
-
Braddock v. Madison County, Ind.
...to the condition." 884 F.Supp. at 286, citing Johnson v. City of Columbia, 949 F.2d 127, 131 (4th Cir.1991); Beebe v. United States, 226 Ct.Cl. 308, 640 F.2d 1283, 1291 (Ct.Cl.1981). The plaintiffs' occasional complaints about the failure to pay them for hours in excess of 35 hours a week d......
-
Intern. Ass'n of Firefighters v. Rome, Ga.
...for a contract implied in fact to exist, there must be a meeting of minds and mutual consent to be bound." Beebe v. United States, 640 F.2d 1283, 1291, 226 Ct.Cl. 308 (1981) (citations omitted). The intention of the parties, as the City admits, is the determining factor. See, e.g., Skidmore......
-
Donovan v. Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc.
...(dictum) with EEOC v. Home Insurance Co., 672 F.2d 252, 266 (2d Cir.1982). See also Brunner, supra, 668 F.2d at 753; Beebe v. United States, 640 F.2d 1283, 1295 (Ct.Cl.1981). "Reasonable belief" is an objective standard. E.g., Addison supra, 204 F.2d at 93; Brunner, supra, 668 F.2d at 753; ......