Aguilar v. Mgmt. & Training Corp.
| Decision Date | 04 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-2198,17-2198 |
| Citation | 948 F.3d 1270 |
| Parties | Marisela AGUILAR; Miguel Blanco ; Francisco J. Carranza; Rafael Gallegos ; Benjamin Guerrero, Jr.; Vaughn D. Hayes, Sr.; Jose R. Hernandez; Rogelio Hernandez; Roman Jauregui; Efren Jimenez ; Flavio Lara; Sixto Navarrete; Anthony Guadalupe Ordaz; Armando Pacheco, Jr.; Alan Perez; Rigoberto Rodarte; Antonio Vasquez; Adrian Villalobos, a/k/a Jose Adrian Villalobos; Maria Acevedo ; Angel Aguilar ; Ezequiel Alvarado; Ricardo Angulo ; Fernando Apodaca; Rene Arreola; Annette Baeza; Juan Baeza ; Reymundo Balderrama; Justin Barba; Ramon Baxter; Stephanie Bertolli; Pedro Blanco; Daniel Boado; Anthony Calla; Leslie Camarillo; Yolanda Campos; Stefany Carranza; Jennifer Cooper; Edward Dang; Luis Dorado ; Luz Duarte; Miguel Duenas; Jim Escalera; Hiram Escobar; Jaime Escobar; Martin L. Espinosa; Carolina Estrada; Guadalupe Estrada ; Christine Fierro; Jose Fuentes ; Michelle Gallegos; Albert Garcia; Anthony Garcia; Arturo Garcia; Edward Garcia; Caesar Gonzalez; Juan Gonzalez; Raul Guzman; David Hernandez; Jesus Hernandez; Paul Hernandez; Gino Hijar; Jun Koo; Rocio D. Leza; Christopher Macias; Angel Maldonado; Arturo Mares ; Daniel Marquez; Pedro Martinez; Saul Martinez; Yvonne Martinez; Juan Matamoros ; Yareth Mireles; Gabriel Molina; Arturo Montero; Carlos Montesinos; Cecilia Morales; Jesus Morales; Yvette Morehead; Norma Muniz; Sandra Neria; Hernan Nevarez ; Erica Nieto; Erik Ontiveros; Gary Lee Orozco; Luis Ortiz; Robert Ortiz; David Padilla ; Juan Parra; Veronica Pena ; Carlos Ponce; Jorge Portillo; Oscar Portillo ; Jose I. Prospero; Isela Quezada; Edgar Ramirez ; Miguel Ramirez; Ygnacio Ramirez; Gustavo Ramon; Rodolfo Rincon, Sr.; Rodolfo Rincon, Jr.; Alberto Rivera; Jennifer Rivera ; Daniel Rodriguez; Oscar Rodriguez; Ruben Rodriguez; Vince Roman ; Carlos Rosales ; Abel Saenz; Lila Saenz; Belinda Sanchez; David Sanchez; Abraham Sandoval ; Gabriela Sifuentes; Salvador Sifuentes ; Irma Soto; Irene Terrazas-Rubio; Manuel Vasquez; Adriana Villalobos; Karina Villalobos; Sasha Villalva; Meagan Villigan, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION, d/b/a MTC, Defendant - Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John P. Mobbs, El Paso, Texas, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Aaron C. Viets, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico (Charles J. Vigil, with him on the brief), for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BACHARACH, EBEL, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
A group of 122 detention officers (the officers) who work or worked at Otero County Prison near Chaparral, New Mexico, allege that their employer, Management & Training Corporation (MTC), fails to pay them for certain activities that they engage in before they arrive at, when they arrive at, and after they leave their posts within the prison. According to the officers, these activities constitute compensable work, so MTC’s failure to pay violates both the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 – 19, and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 50-4-1 to 50-4-33.1
As explained below, we conclude that in this context, these activities constitute compensable work. Further, we reject MTC’s arguments that (1) the time the officers devote to these activities is de minimis and (2) it need not pay the officers for these activities because it did not know the officers were engaging in them. Additionally, we conclude that the officers’ rounding claim survives summary judgment. As such, we reverse the district court’s order awarding summary judgment to MTC and remand for further proceedings.
The officers are "[r]esponsible for the custody and discipline of detainees." App. vol. 3, 573. Among other duties, the officers "[s]earch for contraband and provide security"; "[c]ount, feed[,] and supervise detainees in housing, work[,] and other areas"; and "prepare and maintain records, forms[,] and reports." Id. The officers generally work eight-hour shifts, five days a week. There are three shifts, beginning at 6 a.m., 2 p.m., and 10 p.m. Each officer is typically assigned to work his or her shift at a specific post, and there are more than 30 posts within the prison.
Because this case concerns the activities that the officers engage in before they arrive at and after they leave their posts, as well as one activity at post, we begin by briefly outlining the officers’ undisputed daily routine. (We will later describe certain of these activities in greater detail, as necessary to our analysis.)
When the officers arrive at the prison, they initially undergo a security screening. Then—in what the parties characterize as a "pre[ ]shift briefing"—some officers receive post assignments from a supervisor. App. vol. 5, 1158. During the preshift briefing, officers sometimes receive paperwork or additional information about their post for that day. Next, some officers obtain the keys they need for the day’s post from a fingerprint-activated box. And some or most officers collect any equipment they need for the day, such as handcuffs, a radio, or pepper spray, from the prison’s inventory-control system. The officers then walk to their posts, where they receive a "pass[ ]down briefing" from the officer leaving the post. Aplt. Br. 5. After working their shifts, departing officers complete several of the same tasks in reverse: they provide a passdown briefing to an incoming officer, walk back from their post, and return their keys and equipment to the fingerprint-activated box and the prison’s inventory-control system, respectively.2
MTC requires the officers to use a time clock to precisely record their arrival and departure times; officers clock in after undergoing the security screening and clock out after returning their keys and equipment. Nevertheless, MTC generally pays the officers based on their scheduled eight-hour shifts rather than on the precise times at which they clock in and out. The one exception to this policy is the ten-minute adjustment rule: if an officer clocks in or out more than ten minutes before or after his or her shift start or end time, MTC will pay the officer based on the time clock rather than on his or her scheduled shift. That is, if an officer clocks in for a 6 a.m. shift at 5:58 a.m. and clocks out at 2:09 p.m., MTC will pay that officer for the eight-hour shift (i.e., from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.); but if an officer clocks in for that same shift at 5:45 a.m. and clocks out at 1:49 p.m., MTC will pay that officer based on the time clock (i.e., for eight hours and four minutes). This rule applies on either end of the shift time, so that if an officer clocks in at 5:49 a.m. and clocks out at 1:56 p.m., MTC will pay that officer for time worked from 5:49 a.m., the clock-in time, to 2 p.m., the shift-end time (i.e., for eight hours and 11 minutes). In addition, MTC provides officers with time-adjustment forms, which the officers can complete to request payment if they devote time outside of their scheduled shift to compensable work.
The officers contend that MTC’s compensation system deprives them of overtime pay in two ways. First, they allege that because MTC typically pays them based on shift time rather than clock time, it fails to pay them for the time they devote to undergoing the security screening, receiving the preshift briefing, checking keys and equipment in and out, walking to and from post, and conducting passdown briefings. Second, the officers allege that MTC’s ten-minute adjustment rule routinely rounds down their work time, resulting in systematic underpayment.
Following discovery, MTC moved for summary judgment. It argued that officers do not perform compensable work under the FLSA when they undergo the security screening, receive the preshift briefing, check keys and equipment in and out, walk to and from post, and conduct passdown briefings. Further, MTC alternatively argued that if any of that time was compensable, it was de minimis and thus not recoverable. See 29 C.F.R. § 785.47 (). MTC additionally (1) insisted that it did not impermissibly round off the officers’ working time and (2) raised an estoppel defense, arguing that it need not pay the officers because it did not know the officers were engaging in these activities.
The district court ruled that of the activities the officers described, only the passdown briefing was integral and indispensable to the officers’ principal activities and therefore compensable. But the district court ultimately concluded the officers were not entitled to compensation for the time devoted to conducting passdown briefings because that time was de minimis.
It further rejected the officers’ rounding claim. As such, the district court granted MTC summary judgment on all of the officers’ claims (without reaching MTC’s estoppel defense). The officers appeal.
"We review the district court’s summary[-]judgment decision de novo, applying the same standards as the district court." Punt v. Kelly Servs. , 862 F.3d 1040, 1046 (10th Cir. 2017). "Under these standards, ‘[s]ummary judgment is proper if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non[ ]moving party, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ " Id. () (quoting Peterson v. Martinez , 707 F.3d 1197, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013) ).
The FLSA requires an employer to pay employees for their work, but it does not define what kinds of activities qualify as compensable work. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 – 07 ; Integrity Staffing Sols., Inc. v. Busk , 574 U.S. 27, 31, 135 S.Ct. 513, 190 L.Ed.2d 410 (2014). Confronting that absence, the Supreme Court initially defined compensable work as "all time during...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. State
...whether the security screenings are integral to the Officers’ principal activities, we are persuaded by Aguilar v. Management & Training Corp. , 948 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2020), which held that the time corrections officers spent undergoing pre-shift security screenings was compensable. The ......
-
Alexander v. United States
...case] performed by correctional workers in a prison setting constitute compensable work under the FLSA." Plaintiffs rely on Aguilar v. Management &Training Corp., in which 122 correctional officers claimed they were not for certain pre- and post-shift activities that should have been compen......
-
Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA
...See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court , 210 Cal.App.4th 889, 148 Cal. Rptr. 3d 690, 701 (2012) ). Aguilar v. Mgmt. & Training Corp. , 948 F.3d 1270, 1287-88 (10th Cir. 2020). In Aguilar , the court reversed summary judgment for the employer based on evidence that the rounding favored th......
-
Perry v. City of New York
...and collect and inspect their gear; but it did not compensate for all of that time unless the employee submitted a request. See 948 F.3d at 1274-75. The Tenth Circuit acknowledged "if an employer does not know that an employee is doing certain work, then the employer is not required to pay ......
-
Missouri Supreme Court Reverses Overtime Wages Judgment Resulting From Employer-Mandated Screenings Under The Portal-to-Portal Act
...Hootselle v. Missouri Dep't of Corrections, -- S.W.3d --, 2021 WL 2211675 (Mo. banc 2021). 2. Aguilar v. Management & Training Corp., 948 F.3d 1270 (10th. Cir. 3. See Vaccaro v. Amazon.com.DEDC, LLC, 2021 WL 1022699 (D. N.J. Mar. 17, 2021). 4. See Boone v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, United S......
-
Missouri Supreme Court Reverses Overtime Wages Judgment Resulting From Employer-Mandated Screenings Under The Portal-to-Portal Act
...Hootselle v. Missouri Dep't of Corrections, -- S.W.3d --, 2021 WL 2211675 (Mo. banc 2021). 2. Aguilar v. Management & Training Corp., 948 F.3d 1270 (10th. Cir. 3. See Vaccaro v. Amazon.com.DEDC, LLC, 2021 WL 1022699 (D. N.J. Mar. 17, 2021). 4. See Boone v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, United S......
-
Utah Law Developments
...U.S. 828 (1987), which, although involving different circumstances, “applies here with equal force.” Aguilar v. Mgmt. & Training Corp. 948 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. Feb. 4, 2020) The lawsuit underlying this appeal was filed by 122 detention officers who claimed that their employer violated the F......